Treaties with Spain and the merchants of Portugal—Early
claim of the right of search—Restrictive laws against the
English, and in favour of foreign traders—Accession of Richard
II., A.D. 1377—Character of the imports from Italy—Sudden
change of policy—First Navigation Act, A.D. 1381—A rage
for legislation—Relaxation of the Navigation Act, A.D.
1382-8—Free issue of letters of marque; and of commissions
for privateering—Special tax for the support of the Navy,
A.D. 1377—Superiority of English seamen—Their intrepidity and
skill—Chaucer’s description of the seamen of his time—Henry
IV., A.D. 1399-1413—Disputes between the Hanse and the English
merchants—Agreement for guarding the English coasts—Henry V.,
A.D. 1413: his liberal policy, and ambition—The extent of his
fleet—Size and splendour of the royal ships—Prologue of the
“Dominion of the Sea”—England first formally claims dominion of
the sea, about A.D. 1416—Prerogatives conferred thereby—First
accounts of revenue and expenditure, A D. 1421—Law for the
admeasurement of ships and coal barges—Henry VI. crowned, A.D.
1422—Marauding expedition of the Earl of Warwick—Distress among
shipowners not royal favourites, A.D. 1461—Fresh legislative
enactments—First “sliding scale” applied to the importation
of corn—Relaxation of the laws by means of treaties, A.D.
1467—Treaties of reciprocity—Extension of distant maritime
commerce, A.D. 1485—First English consul in the Mediterranean,
A.D. 1490—The advantages derived from reciprocal intercourse.
[Sidenote: Treaties with Spain and the merchants of Portugal.]
Although Edward’s thoughts had been directed almost exclusively to
the wars with France and Scotland, he found time to extend English
enterprise beyond its then comparatively narrow limits by an
advantageous treaty with Spain[578] in A.D. 1351, consisting mainly
of an offensive and defensive alliance, so that neither nation were
to afford any assistance to their enemies, nor injure each other,
the merchants and seamen of both countries having, at the same time,
full liberty to proceed by land or sea wherever they pleased with
their merchandise. Spanish property found in any vessel taken by
the English was to be restored to the owners, and English property
similarly situated to be respected by Spanish captors; moreover,
Spanish fishermen were permitted to fish on the coasts of England and
Brittany, and were allowed to enter any English ports on the payment of
the same duties and customs to which English vessels were subjected.
A nearly similar treaty was concluded with Portugal in the name of
the merchants, mariners, and communities of Lisbon and Oporto, in
which, however, curiously enough, no mention is made of the king of
Portugal.[579]
[Sidenote: Early claim of the right of search.]
[Sidenote: Restrictive laws against the English, and in favour of
foreign traders.]
[Sidenote: Accession of Richard II., A.D. 1377.]
With the Flemings, treaties were made of a more restrictive character;
thus, they were not to carry goods belonging to either the French or
Spaniards; nor were the ship-owners of these countries allowed to
become burgesses, so as to sail with Flemish papers. The papers of the
Flemish ships were required to state the contents of their cargoes
and their port of discharge, and to be attested by the magistrates
of the port of departure, and also by the Count of Flanders. These
treaties[580] contain the first suggestion of the simulation of a
ship’s papers, so as to secure the ship and cargo from capture by
making their owners denizens of a neutral power. Then arose, for the
first time, those claims to the “Right of search” which England so long
insisted upon, and maintained against the world in arms; claims not
yet relinquished, though now rarely enforced. It must not, however,
be supposed from these so far salutary regulations that Edward or his
council had any knowledge of sound commercial legislation; for, in
1303, every English merchant was commanded to restrict his business
to one commodity only, and to select at once the article he would
trade in.[581] Five years afterwards they were by law prohibited
from importing wine from Gascony, though, at that time, an English
dependency;[582] while, with singular inconsistency, the Parliament of
England, by an Act of 1378,[583] perceiving “the advantages derived
from the resort of merchant strangers,” gave foreign merchants
permission to remain in the kingdom as long as they had occasion, and
to buy or to sell, wholesale or retail, provisions, spices, fruits,
furs, silk, gold and silver wire or thread, and numerous other small
wares. The merchant strangers could likewise dispose of various
descriptions of cloths, linen, canvas, and other bulky articles of
manufacture, in any city, fair, or market, though in quantities of not
less than a piece, it being the privilege of freemen only to dispose of
them by retail as well as wholesale, with the exclusive right also of
retailing wines, foreigners being restricted to their sale in the casks
in which they were imported.
In consequence of these changes in the laws, the merchants of Genoa,
Venice, Catalonia, Aragon, and of other western countries, brought
their carracks, galleys, and vessels of various descriptions to the
ports of England, where, disposing freely of their merchandise, they
received in exchange, wool, tin, lead, and other articles the produce
of that country: Southampton proved so convenient and favourite a
port of resort, that a Genoese merchant of great opulence offered to
raise it to a pre-eminence above any other port of Western Europe, as
the depôt for the Oriental goods the Genoese had hitherto conveyed to
Flanders, Normandy, and Bretagne, provided the king would allow him to
store his goods in the castle of Southampton. We cannot doubt that had
this offer been accepted, this port would have become, to the great
advantage of England, the entrepôt for the supply of the northern
markets of Europe. The foul murder of this enterprising stranger,
in the streets of London, put an end to his wisely-imagined scheme,
English merchants ignorantly supposing that their own trade would
prosper the more by the prevention of his plan.[584]
[Sidenote: Character of the imports from Italy.]
[Sidenote: Feb. 10th, 1380.]
[Sidenote: Sudden change of policy.]
From the accident of a Catalan ship, bound from Genoa to Sluys,
the port of Bruges in Flanders, having been wrecked at Dunster in
Somersetshire, an insight is obtained into the nature of the cargoes
shipped at that period from Italy to Flanders. The merchants, in
claiming the restoration of her cargo, enumerate its contents, viz.,
sulphur, wood, ginger, green and cured with lemon juice; raisins,
writing paper, flax, white sugar, prunes, cinnamon, pepper, and a
few other articles of minor importance;[585] thereby showing that
this ship was freighted with the produce of India as well as of the
Mediterranean. For all of these England might then have become the
depôt, but her merchants could not, as yet, discern the advantages of
a free intercourse with foreign nations; they still believed that a
ruinous competition and the loss of their bullion would be the probable
results; and in this spirit persuaded Parliament[586] to prohibit,
unless under special circumstances, the exportation of bullion, either
in the shape of coin or otherwise. They pretended, further, that under
the existing regulations all their carrying trade passed into the hands
of foreigners, who, in point of wealth, commercial experience, and
command of shipping were far superior to themselves.
[Sidenote: First Navigation Act, A.D. 1381.]
Doubtless, there was some justice in these complaints. Foreigners,
by law, were able to undersell the English in their own markets, as
they could bring goods from foreign ports at rates of freight which
would have been unremunerative to the shipowners of England. The first
Navigation Act[587] was consequently passed, but, as one extreme
frequently begets another, this law proved to be one of the most
restrictive kind against foreign vessels. What effect it produced upon
English shipping we have been unable to ascertain, as there are no
statistical returns nor accounts, however crude, now extant, of the
shipping and commerce of this period; but, unless it enhanced the rates
of freight to the injury of the consumer, it could not have benefited
those in whose interests it had been passed; while, on the other hand,
any increase in the rates of freight would assuredly have tended to
diminish the number of ships employed. The law of Edward I., in so far
as it granted special privileges to foreign traders and their shipping,
though it may have been necessary at the period, was certainly unjust
towards the merchants and ship-owners of England; and it is not,
therefore, surprising that they embraced the first opportunity to
resort to extreme retaliatory measures against their wealthy and
powerful foreign competitors.
Nevertheless, there was less wisdom in Richard’s law, “to freight none
but English ships,” than there was in Edward’s answer to a petition to
expel foreign shipping from his ports, “I am convinced that merchant
strangers are useful and beneficial to the greatness of the kingdom,
and therefore I shall not expel them:” but, while Edward’s policy
encouraged the establishment of foreign trading associations in
England, a clear advantage to the people generally, his ship-owners
unquestionably suffered, as they had to struggle against laws the
especial object of which had been the encouragement of foreign maritime
enterprise. Edward would have displayed greater wisdom and sounder
policy had he simply placed “merchant strangers” on an equal footing
with his own people, and his country would have been spared the
conflicts of navigation laws, which have raged with greater or less
bitterness almost to the present day.
[Sidenote: A rage for legislation.]
As was natural, a protective system once inaugurated, other classes
besides the ship-owners claimed its presumed advantages.[588] Thus,
immediately afterwards, Richard issued a general proclamation,
prohibiting the exportation of corn or malt to any foreign country,
except to the king’s territories in Gascony, Bayonne, Calais,
Brest, Cherburg, Berwick-upon-Tweed, and other forts held for his
majesty.[589] Nor was this all; frivolous pretensions led to frivolous
laws: thus, the fishmongers of London were prohibited from buying any
fresh fish to sell again, except eels or pikes.[590] No cloths could
be exposed to sale except of a manufacture sanctioned by law;[591]
dealers in provisions of all kinds were placed under the control of
the mayor and aldermen of London;[592] no one was permitted to carry
corn and malt, or food, or refreshments of any kind to Scotland;[593]
while laws were passed with the idle object of maintaining the relative
positions of the different classes of society, as though their rulers
were hopeless of talent, industry, or honesty reaping their natural
reward. Parliament actually enacted that no servant should remove from
one hundred to another, unless travelling upon his master’s business;
the wages for agricultural labour were fixed by law; children employed
in husbandry up to twelve years of age were to be confined to that
description of employment for life; farm servants were prohibited from
carrying weapons, except bows and arrows for practice on Sundays and
holidays; while enactments scarcely less absurd kept down the mechanics
and labourers of the cities and boroughs.[594]
[Sidenote: Relaxation of the Navigation Act, A.D. 1382-8.]
But these evils found their natural remedy: the evasion of such
restrictive laws was so general, that those affecting shipping were
relaxed almost as soon as they had come into operation. In October,
1382, permission was given to English merchants in foreign ports,
if they did not find in them sufficient native tonnage for their
purpose, to ship their goods for England in foreign vessels;[595]
aliens were allowed[596] to bring fish and provisions into any town
or city, preparing them for sale in any manner they pleased; lastly,
in 1388, it was enacted, in direct opposition to the recently adopted
restrictive policy, that foreign merchants might sell their goods by
retail or wholesale in London or elsewhere, any claims or privileges of
corporations or individuals notwithstanding, while the late impositions
on their merchandise were, at the same time, declared illegal and of no
effect.[597]
It is alike curious and instructive to examine the many and
inconsistent laws passed about this period to regulate maritime
commerce, and to compel Englishmen as well as foreigners to conduct
their business otherwise than they would have preferred for their own
interests. Thus, in 1390,[598] foreign merchants bringing goods to
England were required to give security to the officers of customs at
the port of landing, that they would invest half of the proceeds in
wool, hides, cloths, lead, tin, or other English commodities; while
another law passed in the same year[599] provided that a merchant,
drawing a bill of exchange on Rome or elsewhere, should lay out the
whole money received for it within three months on articles of English
growth or manufacture. But perhaps the most curious and unmeaning Act
of this year was one[600] which, in order “to keep up the price of
wool,” forbade any Englishman to buy that article from any one but
the owners of sheep or of the tithes, unless in the staple, or to
purchase wool, except on his own account for sale at the staple, or for
manufacture into cloth: he was also forbidden to export either wools,
hides, or wool-fells; although, by the same Act, full permission to do
so when and how they pleased was granted to foreigners. By another Act,
the merchants of England were obliged to export their merchandise in
English vessels only; and the ship-owners were desired to carry them
for “reasonable freights”!
[Sidenote: Free issue of letters of marque, and of commissions for
privateering.]
Few reigns, in proportion to its extent, were likewise more prolific
for the issue of letters of marque than that of Richard II. They were
freely granted, for the purpose of revenging or compensating hostile
aggressions on individuals, and also to enable the English creditor
to recover debts, not only from foreign countries, but likewise from
natives of his own country, whose property he could thus conveniently
confiscate. Among the most conspicuous of these were the letters
granted in 1399 to John de Waghen, of Beverley, against the subjects
of the Count of Holland, because that prince had not compelled two of
them to pay some money due to Waghen; while orders were actually issued
to detain all vessels and property in England, belonging to Holland
and Zealand, till the Count should determine this affair “according
to justice.”[601] The people of Dartmouth took the lead in these
semi-piratical acts, as they held from the king a general privateering
commission, whereby they brought away (1385) various rich vessels from
the mouth of the Seine, one of which, according to the testimony of
Walsingham,[602] bore the name of “Clisson’s Barge”[603] (Clisson being
at that time Constable of France), and “had not its equal in England
or France;” while one of their merchants, with a fleet of his own,
captured no less than thirty-three vessels, with fifteen hundred tuns
of Rochelle wine.[604]
[Sidenote: Special tax for the support of the Navy, A.D. 1377.]
There can be no doubt that, at the period of Richard’s accession, the
English navy was in a very neglected state, and wholly unfit to protect
even the comparatively small number of English merchant vessels then
engaged in foreign commerce. France, with fifty ships under the command
of Admiral Sir John de Vienne, had made a descent on Rye, and, after
plundering that town and neighbourhood, had levied a contribution
of one thousand marks upon the inhabitants of the Isle of Wight; on
the same occasion pillaging and burning Hastings, Plymouth, and
Dartmouth; while the Scots, under Mercer, one of their most daring
adventurers, plundered every English vessel that fell in his way, and
thereby realised enormous booty.[605] The English government became,
at length, seriously alarmed, and were induced, in October 1377, to
pass the first law on record, whereby dues were levied on all merchant
vessels frequenting English ports, for the purpose of restoring and
maintaining an efficient royal navy.[606] The only exceptions made
were those in favour of ships bringing merchandise from Flanders to
London, and of the traders from London to Calais with wool and hides;
every other vessel leaving the Thames was required to pay sixpence
per ton; while a similar tax, payable weekly, was levied on boats
engaged in the herring-fisheries, and one-third that amount on all
other fishing-boats. A monthly duty of 6_d._ per ton had likewise to
be paid by colliers, as well as by all merchant vessels sailing from
any port in England to Russia, Norway, or Sweden.[607] In the belief
that the Navy thus created would be applied as proposed, this tax was
readily voted and as willingly paid by the shipowners; but, in the
end, it was appropriated to entirely different purposes. There seems,
in those days, to have been a restless desire, scarcely now wholly
forgotten, to interfere with the affairs of other countries. Thus the
“grand fleet,” when equipped, sailed under the command of the Duke of
Lancaster and besieged St. Malo ineffectually, the natural result being
that French cruisers ravaged the coasts of Cornwall, while a combined
fleet of French and Spanish galleys sailed up the Thames to Gravesend,
plundering and destroying the towns and villages along the Kentish
shores.[608]
[Sidenote: Superiority of English seamen.]
Here again the merchant service came to the timely aid of the
state.[609] The hostile galleys, on their way down the Channel with
the view of ravaging every defenceless place on the coast, were met
by a fleet of west-country merchantmen,[610] who had united for their
mutual defence, and thus, for the present, checked their further
course. Though their vessels were generally much smaller than those
of the Spaniards and often more than over-matched by their superior
equipment, the English far surpassed the seamen of the south in daring
skill and hardihood. By the boldness of their attack, especially during
inclement weather, they often, as in the present instance, achieved
victories over their better found and more scientific adversaries.
They had, however, a long career of thankless, though of noble and
patriotic, struggles. Heavily taxed for the maintenance of a fleet, too
often used for purposes of no concern to the nation, they were still
obliged to create one of their own to protect their commerce and to
defend their homes, at a time, too, when legislative enactments threw
nearly the whole of their carrying trade into the hands of aliens and
strangers.[611]
[Sidenote: Their intrepidity and skill.]
But while narrow prejudices and mistaken legislation depressed the
maritime commerce of the country, English sailors continued to
maintain, in spite of every national blunder and vicissitude, their
superiority in activity and skill. During the whole period from the
Conquest to the end of the fourteenth century, they showed the highest
genius and daring in navigating their ships, and more and more courage
in their contests with the French, as the sphere of their efforts
became extended. The testimony of contemporary historians, foreign
as well as English, attest this opinion; and the imperishable glory
and renown of their exploits, under circumstances of the most adverse
character and in the face of apparently insurmountable difficulties,
contributed in a great measure to the extension of the maritime power
of England over that of most other nations. The splendid victory of
England off the Swyn, in 1340, had been mainly owing to the superiority
in naval tactics of her seamen, a race, it must be remembered, not
trained to fight in the disciplined manner of modern times, but, as has
so often been the case on subsequent occasions, chiefly distinguished
for their bravery, hearty exertions, and extraordinary, but natural
skill.[612]
[Sidenote: Chaucer’s description of the seamen of his time.]
Among the most graphic descriptions of the character of the English
seamen of the fourteenth century, is that of the renowned Chaucer[613]
in his “Prologue to the Canterbury Tales.” Although it is the picture
of a hardened, reckless “felawe,” who made no scruple to drown the
prisoners whom he captured—“by water he sent them home to every
land”—it affords an excellent insight into the manners and customs,
as well as the dress, of the seamen of his time. Indeed, the poet’s
description gives a good idea of the free-and-easy character of seamen
at all periods of English history; a class of men scarcely less
distinct and peculiar in their habits now than then; and while equally
expert and ready in tempestuous weather, no less fond, when at ease on
shore, of “their draught of wyn,” or of their glass of grog.
“A schipman was ther, wonyng fer by Weste:
For ought I woot, he was of Dertemouthe
He rood upon a rouncy, as he couthe,
In a gown of faldying to the kne.
A dagger hangyng on a laas hadde he
Aboute his nekke under his arm adoun.
The hoote somer had maad his hew al broun;
And certeinly he was a good felawe.
Ful many a draught of wyn had he drawe
From Burdeux-ward, whil that the chapman sleep.
Of nyce conscience took he no keep.
If that he foughte, and hadde the heigher hand,
By water he sente hem hoom to every land.
But of his craft to rikne wel the tydes,
His stremes and his dangers him bisides,
His herbergh and his mone, his lodemenage,
Ther was non such from Hulle to Cartage.
Hardy he was, and wys to undertake;
With many a tempest hadde his berd ben schake.
He knew wel alle the havenes, as thei were,
From Scotlond to the Cape of Fynestere,
And every cryk in Bretayne and in Spayne;
His barge y-clepud was the Magdelayne.”
It was, however, impossible, even with the aid of such daring and
skilful mariners, for England to maintain her position at sea, or
her commerce, in the face of the laws we have attempted briefly to
describe, and the lawless acts of too many of those of her people
engaged in maritime pursuits.
[Sidenote: Henry IV. A.D. 1399-1413.]
The reign of Henry IV., opening with conspiracies at home and troubles
abroad, afforded at first little hope of improvement in the laws
affecting English maritime commerce; that monarch, however, was able to
make arrangements with Prussia so as to restore the long interrupted
commercial intercourse between the two countries;[614] while two years
later he concluded a treaty with the Hanse Towns. By this treaty were
also settled many claims of those merchants and ship-owners against
English cruisers, who, however, in turn, alleged that their property
had been captured and destroyed by the Prussians, and their countrymen
taken from their ships and thrown into prison. The merchants of Lynn,
especially, “complained pitifully[615] that four of their ships, with
cargoes on board, consisting chiefly of cloth and wine, were captured
on their way to Prussia, some of their people being slain, while some
were grievously injured, and others put to extreme ransoms.”
[Sidenote: Disputes between the Hanse and the English merchants.]
On the other hand, the complaints of the Hanse Towns merchants
were not confined to losses sustained by the piratical acts of the
cruisers, who, after due inquiry, really appear to have been the
greatest delinquents; they alleged also not a few infringements by
English traders of their chartered privileges. They urged that many
new charges and duties had been exacted from their goods and shipping;
that, besides the ancient duty of 3_s._ 4_d._ upon every sack of wool,
a charge of 1_s._ 7_d._ was imposed by the town of Calais; that the
officers of the Customs over-rated the value of their goods, exacting
duties for various kinds of cloths formerly exempted by the charter
of merchants; that, in order to remove their goods from one port
of England to another, they had to pay duties twice over; and that
needless delays were created, whereby they often lost the market for
their goods, which were, further, sometimes damaged by lying three
or four weeks on the wharves. This, they asserted, was mainly due to
the neglect of the officers of the Customs. The English commissioners
retorted that the Hanse merchants had combined to destroy the commerce
and manufactures of England by refusing to hold intercourse with their
merchants in the Hanse Towns, or to buy English cloth from Englishmen,
and that they had even imposed fines on those who had English cloth
in their possession. They accused them also of passing the goods of
merchants not belonging to the Hanse under their name, to avoid paying
the proper duties.[616]
These differences, which had their origin mainly in absurd laws
framed to protect one nation from competition with another, though,
in reality, by endeavouring to put a stop to all intercourse between
nations, affording encouragement to violent dissensions, private
warfare and piracy, were at last settled by the payment of modified
sums to each of the claimants; but while England had to pay 32,326
nobles, there was found to be due to her people only 766! a pretty
convincing proof that she had been by far the greater delinquent in
fitting out these piratical expeditions.
[Sidenote: Agreement for guarding the English coasts.]
Although Henry made extraordinary exertions to provide England with
a royal navy, the entire guardianship of the sea from May 1406 to
Michaelmas of the following year was entrusted to her merchant
vessels,[617] the law requiring their owners “to maintain certain ships
on the seas.” They were further empowered to select out of their body
two fit persons, to whom the king granted commissions to act as his
admirals. As a recompense for their services, the owners of the vessels
thus employed were allowed three shillings per tun on all wines
imported during that period, and twelve pence per pound on the value
of all other merchandise exported or imported, with the fourth part
of the then existing subsidy on wool and leather. Although the king
complained shortly after these privileges were granted that “they had
not sufficiently guarded the seas according to contract,” the system of
entrusting, if not wholly, at least in a great measure, the protection
of its shores and maritime commerce to its merchant ship-owners,
prevailed for many years: indeed, as already shown, it was upon them
that England mainly depended in her maritime wars. In those early days
they had also their own wrongs to redress as well as those of the
nation.
[Sidenote: Henry V., A.D. 1413: his liberal policy, and ambition.]
When Henry V. ascended the throne, he, according to Rymer, confirmed
the privileges which had been granted by some of his predecessors to
foreign merchants and shipping frequenting his kingdom.[618] From the
same authority[619] we learn that the king, who held the sole right
of drawing bills of exchange for the use of persons visiting the
papal court, Venice, and other places abroad, leased this right for
three years at the annual rental of 133_l._ 16_s._ 8_d._, afterwards
increased to 208_l._, the contractor being bound not to export any gold
or silver on account of the bills he drew. Merchants, however, trading
with these places were allowed to draw bills for their merchandise,
but for no other purpose. In his reign also the exemption from the
obligation of carrying the staple goods to Paris, granted to the
commercial states of Italy and Spain by the act of the second year of
Richard II., was renewed.
The short and, as it has been called, “brilliant reign of Henry V.”
was disastrous to the commercial interests of England, in that it was
devoted more to foreign conquests than to the internal affairs of his
people. He had, indeed, hardly ascended the throne (March and April
1413), when he resolved to assert his claim to the crown of France by
force of arms. Every vessel in England, of twenty tons and upwards,
was pressed into the service and ordered to assemble at London,
Southampton, Sandwich, Winchelsea, and Bristol, ready for immediate
action. Nor could the ports of England supply his wants. Commissioners
were despatched to engage on hire whatever vessels could be obtained
in Holland and Zealand; his whole force, when collected ready for the
invasion of France, consisting of fifteen hundred vessels, English
and foreign, manned to a large extent by crews collected through the
instrumentality of the press-gang.[620]
[Sidenote: The extent of his fleet.]
[Sidenote: Size and splendour of the royal ships.]
Perhaps no finer fleet had before been despatched from the shores of
England, but it was created at an enormous cost. In vain the Parliament
remonstrated against the outlay, and “humbly” represented that the
conquest of France would be the ruin of England, while the merchants
and ship-owners, exhausted by former unprofitable wars, were equally
opposed to what they considered a vain-glorious expedition. But Henry
paid no attention to either their remonstrances or prayers. He had
fixed his mind upon the expedition. The expense was to him a matter
of little or no consideration. Observing that the vessels brought
to the assistance of the French by the Castilians and Genoese were
larger and better than any he possessed, he ordered to be built at
Southampton[621] the “Trinity,” “Holy Ghost,” and the “Grâce de Dieu,”
vessels said, from their size, rig, and power, to have been “such as
were never seen in the world before.”[622] But his two flag-ships,
styled the king’s chamber and his hall, in one of which he embarked,
were, from the descriptions preserved of them, the most magnificent of
his fleet. Adorned with purple sails, whereon the arms of England and
France were embroidered, they represented this proud monarch’s court
and palace upon the sea.
Although Henry doubtless achieved his object by restoring Normandy to
the dominion of England, the success of his expedition, however barren
in its ultimate results, was mainly due to his command of the Channel.
A document in metrical verse, illustrative of the war, and written
about this period, gives so graphic an account of the then existing
state of maritime commerce, and so well points out the wisdom of
England in maintaining her supremacy at sea, that a few extracts from
it cannot fail to be interesting and instructive to our readers. It
probably contains the views of the most enlightened men in England
on the impolicy of the course of continental conquest on which Henry
had embarked. This curious production, which occupies twenty-one or
twenty-two folios of closely printed black letter in Hakluyt, and
has been frequently referred to and quoted by writers upon English
shipping, is entitled—
[Sidenote: Prologue of the “Dominion of the Sea.”]
“Here beginneth the Prologue of the Processe of the _Libel of English
policie, exhorting all England to keepe the sea, and namely the narrowe
sea_; and shewing what profite commeth thereof, and also what worship
and saluation to _England_ and to all Englishmen.”
However much the people of England may at the time have been flattered
by Henry’s heroic deeds of arms, it is evident from this poem that
a large class were thoroughly convinced of the impolicy of the
aggressions of their monarch. But the all-important point the author
has in view is the necessity of maintaining the command of the Channel
as the only true safeguard of the shores of England; and almost every
statesman since then has endeavoured to carry into effect what the
author in his quaint old language so strongly recommends:
“The true Processe of English policie
Of otterward to keepe this regne in
Of our _England_, that no man may deny.
Ner say of _sooth_ but it is one of the best,
Is this, that who seeth South, North, East and West,
Cherish marchandise, keepe the admiraltie;
That we bee Masters of the narrowe sea.
“For _Sigismond_[623] the great Emperour
Wich yet reigneth, when he was in this land
With King _Henry_ the Fift, Prince of Honour
Here much glory, as him thought, he found,
A mightie land which had take in hand
To werre in _France_, and make mortalitie,
And euer well kept round about the sea.
“And to the king thus hee sayd: My Brother,
(When hee perceiued two Townes _Caleis_ and _Douer_)
Of all your Townes to chuse of one and other,
To keepe the sea and soone to come ouer
To werre outwards and your regne to recouer:
Keepe these two Townes sure, and your Majestee
As your tweyne eyne: so keepe the narrowe sea.
“For if this sea be kept in time of werre,
Who can heere passe without danger and woe?
Who may escape, who may mischiefe differre?
What Marchandie may forby bee agoe?
For needs hem must take trewes every foe:
_Flanders_ and _Spain_ and othere, trust to mee,
Or ellis hindred all for this Narrow sea.
“Therefore I cast mee by a little writing
To shewe at eye this conclusion,
For conscience and for mine acquiting
Against God and ageyne abusion,
And cowardise, and to our enemies confusion.
For FOURE things our Noble sheweth to me,
KING, SHIP, and SWERD, and POWER of the SEA.”
In the first chapter of his poem the author gives a very lucid account
of the course of the commerce then carried on between England, Spain,
and Flanders. No mention is made of France, as England was then engaged
in hostilities with that country; but from Spain English merchants
imported figs, raisins, wine, dates, licorice, oil, grains, white
pastile soap,[624] wax, iron, wool, wadmolle, goat fell, saffron, and
quicksilver; and, from Flanders, fine cloth of Ypres and of Courtray
were carried in Spanish ships homewards, with fustians and also linen
cloth. These cargoes requiring necessarily to pass between Calais
and Dover going and coming, Spain and Flanders being then mutually
dependent, while the raw material of the Flemish manufactures came
from England, it followed that the interest of both these powers lay
in keeping peace with that country, or the Flemish factories would be
starved. In the second chapter the trade with Portugal is described. It
represents that Portugal is England’s friend, her shipping resorting
thither to trade in wines, wax, grain, figs, raisins, dates, honey,
Cordovan leather, hides, &c., all of which merchandize were carried in
great quantities to Flanders, justly described as the largest “staple”
or market at that time in all Christendom. But Portugal is accused of
being changeable; “she is in our power while we are masters of the
narrow seas.”
In the third chapter, it is stated that the people of Bretagne were
great rovers on the sea, and had often done much havoc on the coasts
of England, landing, killing, and burning to her great disgrace, but
that they durst not be her open foes so long as she had possession of
the narrow seas. The vigour of Edward III. is extolled in granting
letters of reprisals to the seamen of Dartmouth, Plymouth, and Fowey,
by which the pirates from Brittany, especially those from St. Malo,
were extirpated. The trade of Scotland is reported to have consisted
of wool, wool-fells, and hides; but her wool was sent to Flanders
to be dressed, as it was not equal in quality to the English wool,
with which it was often mixed before being manufactured. Scotland, we
are also informed, brought from Flanders mercery and haberdashery in
great quantities: moreover, one-half of these Scottish ships were then
generally laden home from Flanders with cart-wheels and wheel-barrows.
The writer remarks that the Scotch ships must pass by the English coast
on their way to Flanders, and might therefore be easily intercepted,
“——If they would not our friends bee
We might lightly stoppe hem in the sea.”
The trade of the Easterlings,[625] Prussia, and Germany, consisted of
copper, beer, bacon, bow staves, steel, wax, pottery, pitch and tar,
fir, oak planks, Cologne thread, wool cards, fustian, canvas, and
buckram, exported to Flanders; whence were carried back silver plate
and wedges, and silver (which came to Flanders in great plenty from
Bohemia and Hungary); also woollen cloths of all colours. “And they
aventure full greatly unto the Bay For salt that is needefull;”
“They should not passe our streems withouten leve
It would not be, but if we should hem greue.”
There then follows a description of the commerce of Genoa, whose
merchants resorted to England in great caracks “arrayed withouten
lacke,” with cloth of gold, silk, black pepper, woad, wool, oil,
cotton, rock-alum, taking as a return cargo, wool, and woollen cloth
made with home-spun wool, proceeding frequently from England to
Flanders, then the chief market of north-eastern Europe.
“If they would be our full enemies,
They should not passe our streems with marchandise.”
The trade with Venice is next detailed in original and explicit terms,
and extends to great length.
“The great Galees of _Venice_ and _Florence_
Be well laden with things of complacence
All spicery and of grossers ware:
With sweete wines all maner of chaffare,
Apes and Japes and marmusets tayled,
Nifles and trifles that little have avayled:”
and so forth.
The author then alludes to the frauds committed by the Italian
bankers and factors, all which he strongly and with the deep feelings
of patriotic prejudice animadverts upon and condemns. He shows the
disadvantages English merchants laboured under in point of trade with
foreign markets. He claims at least reciprocal advantages, and after
showing how valuable the trade is likely to become, he concludes—
“Keep then the sea, shippes should not bring ne fetch,
And then the carreys wold not thidre stretch:
And so those marts wold full evil thee,
If we manly kept about the sea.”
In his eighth chapter the author describes the trade of Brabant,
Zealand, and Hainault, both by sea and land, and expatiates upon the
value of English merchandise, adding that the English are the best
customers at all the foreign fairs;
“As all the goods that come in shippes thider,
Which Englishmen bye most and bring it hither.”
He laments with deep regret the neglect of English shipping for the
guard of the sea.
“A prince riding with his swerd ydraw
In the other side sitting, soth it is in saw
Betokening good rule and punishing
In very deed of _England_, by the king.
And it is so, God blessed mought he bee.
So in likewise I would were on the sea,
By the _Noble_, that swerde should haue power,
And the ships on the sea about us here.”
Throughout the whole document the dominion of the sea is urgently
enforced, and the insolence of certain ships of the Hanse Towns
loudly complained of. The folly of English merchants colouring the
goods of foreigners is also condemned. The ninth chapter relates to
the trade with Ireland, of which it furnishes a copious account. The
author mentions gold and silver ore as being produced there in large
quantities, and urges the importance of quelling the wild Irish, and
keeping the country in strict obedience, all which, he states, cannot
be done without good ships, and being masters of the seas. The trade
of Iceland is also mentioned, and its important fisheries; and here
follows a distinct mention of the mariner’s compass, as having been
recently introduced by merchant mariners.
There can be no doubt that the mariner’s compass was at this period in
general use as the “shipman’s card” on board of English vessels; and
further, that English seamen were extensively employed in the trade
with Spain and Brittany.
“Of _Island_ to write is litle nede
Saue of stock-fish: yet forsooth indeed
Out of Bristowe (Bristol), and costes many one,
Men haue practised _by nedle and by stone_[626].
Thiderwardes, within litle a while,
Within twelue yeer, and without perill
Gon and come, as men were wont of old
Of _Scarborough_ unto the costes cold.
And nowe so fele shippes this yeere there ware
That moch losse for unfreyght they beare.”
This chapter concludes with some remarks upon the importance of Calais,
criticising several incidents in the reigns of Edgar, Edward III.,
and Henry V., and concluding with a most energetic exhortation to all
English statesmen to consider the deep national importance of his
arguments concerning English commerce, navigation, and the dominion
of the sea, upon which he re-asserts that the peace, prosperity, and
security of their island essentially depend.
“The ende of battaile is peace sikerly,
And power causeth peace finally.
Keepe then the sea, about in special
Which of _England_ is the town-wall.
As though _England_ were likened to a citie,
And the wall enuiron were the sea.
Kepe then the sea, that is the wall of _England_:
And then is _England_ kept by Goddes hande;
That as for any thing that is without,
_England_ were at ease, withouten doubt.”
[Sidenote: England first formally claims dominion of the sea, about
A.D. 1416.]
That the author of these curious metrical rhymes represented the
feelings of the age is, in some measure, confirmed by the fact that,
towards the close of the reign of Henry V., the Parliament of England,
for the first time, asserted their right to the dominion of the
sea in all their more important formal documents, or rather to its
sovereignty. “The Commons do pray,” ran these documents, “that seeing
our sovereign lord the king and his noble progenitors have ever been
lords of the sea,” &c., &c. Nor were these claims, then, whatever
they may have been in former ages, nominal titles. Without citing the
opinions of Hugo Grotius, and other jurisconsults, on the necessity
of a prince proclaiming by an overt act that he is lord of the sea,
there can be no doubt that the English, from the earliest periods, did
at least assert, if unable at all times to maintain, the dominion of
the English Channel and a large portion of the North Sea. In the year
1674[627] the extent of the dominions of the British sovereign in the
eastern and southern sea was ascertained and admitted to reach from the
middle point of the land of Vans Staten, in Norway, to Cape Finisterre
in Spain; a large extent of sea which England then asserted, and has
since the reign of Charles II. maintained by many hard-fought naval
engagements. Indeed, so far back as the reign of King John, we have
already noticed, in the records of his marine laws, one to the effect
that if a lieutenant of a king’s ship encounter any vessel or vessels,
laden or unladen, that will not strike and veil their bonnets[628] at
the command of the lieutenant of the king, they were to be taken and
condemned.
[Sidenote: Prerogatives conferred thereby.]
That this right was not then a barren title may be assumed from the
fact, that it involved mercantile interests of the most important
character, within the limits named, which were guarded with the utmost
jealousy for centuries. The prerogative claimed by the crown included,
1st, the royalty of granting the liberty of fishing for pearl, coral,
amber, and all other precious commodities. 2nd. The power of granting
licences to fish for whales, sturgeon, pilchard, salmon, herring, and
all other fish whatsoever, as then exercised in Spain and elsewhere.
3rd. The power of imposing tribute and custom on all merchant ships,
and fishermen, trading and fishing within the limits of the sea,
subjected to private dominion, in the same manner as if enjoying the
state’s protection in its dominion on land. 4th. The regular execution
of justice, by protecting the innocent, and punishing delinquents for
all crimes committed within the limits described, protection being due
to all who paid homage and tribute. 5th. The power of granting free
passage through such sea to any number of ships of war belonging to
any foreign prince, or of denying the same according to circumstances,
in like manner as foreign potentates may grant or deny free passage
of foreign troops through their territories by land. This right
being exercised in peace as well as during war, all foreign vessels
whatsoever, whether ships of war or others, navigating within those
seas, and there meeting any of the ships of war or others bearing
the colours of the sovereign of such seas, “are required to salute
the said ships of war by striking the flag, or lowering,” as we have
just mentioned, “one of her sails, by which sort of submission the
saluters are put in remembrance that they have entered a territory in
which there is sovereign power and jurisdiction to be acknowledged, and
protection to be expected.”[629]
Although from the earliest periods of history successive nations have
periodically claimed the sovereignty of certain seas, England appears
to have been the only one of either ancient or modern times which not
merely asserted and maintained that power in the English Channel and
neighbouring waters, but was fully acknowledged to possess it by other
nations, who admitted “the striking or veiling the bonnets” to be a
ceremonious homage in recognition of her absolute sovereignty.
[Sidenote: First accounts of revenue and expenditure, A.D. 1421.]
Towards the close of the reign of Henry V. an account is, for the
first time, published of the revenue of the kingdom. It appears to
have amounted, in 1421, to the sum of 55,743_l._, obtained chiefly,
if not altogether, by duties upon commerce; the customs and subsidy
upon wool alone amounting to more than one-half, or 30,000_l._; while
the small customs, and a duty of twelve pence in the pound in value
on other goods, realized 10,675_l._ Out of that year’s revenue there
was expended no less than 38,619_l._[630] in the custody and defence
of Calais, Scotland, and Roxburgh, and their “marches;” while the
custody and defence of England and Ireland were maintained for the
comparatively moderate sum of 6,990_l._ The officers of customs at
London and the outposts received 821_l._ for their services, but
the salaries of “dukes, earls, knights, esquires, and the abbess of
Shene,” amounted to 7,751_l._ A sum of 4,370_l._ was likewise charged
on the customs for “annuities,” but no mention is made of how they
were appropriated. A lump sum of 3,507_l._ appears to have been paid,
without distinguishing the items, “to the king’s and queen’s household
and wardrobe; the king’s works; the new tower at Portsmouth; the clerk
of the king’s ships; the king’s lions, and the constable of the tower;
artillery; the king’s prisoners, ambassadors, messengers, parchment,
and the Duchess of Holland;”[631]—a curious enough medley, but perhaps
not more promiscuous than some of the estimates of our own time,
frequently smuggled in one sum through Parliament, from the difficulty
and delicacy of defending many of them if produced in detail.
[Sidenote: Law for the admeasurement of ships and coal barges.]
Immediately before the close of the reign of Henry V., an Act[632]
was passed requiring all ships to be measured according to prescribed
forms, so as to ascertain their tonnage or capacity, and preclude the
possibility of one ship deriving advantage over another. By a clause
in this Act, the barges, or “keels,” then employed in the conveyance
of coals from the colliery wharves to the ships in the Tyne were also
required to be measured and marked by the Crown. From that day, until
now, every keel contains 21 tons 4 cwt. of coals, and in the north of
England the capacity of a ship is still better understood by the number
of keels she can carry than by her registered tonnage.
[Sidenote: Henry VI. crowned, A.D. 1422.]
[Sidenote: Marauding expedition of the Earl of Warwick.]
It is not our province to notice the long and terrible wars between
the Houses of York and Lancaster which followed the accession of the
infant Henry VI. to the throne of England.[633] War, in all cases,
would seem to have encouraged hordes of marauders to fit out armed
vessels, too frequently under the pretence of the national defence, but
practically for their own gain and aggrandisement. But the war which
now raged for supremacy between the rival claimants to the crown of
England was, perhaps, the one of all others which offered the greatest
encouragement to these disgraceful expeditions. Forms of licence were
hardly necessary, as the flags of Lancaster or of York were sufficient
covers to many crimes. Thus, under plea of aiding the cause of the
House of York, the Earl of Warwick, “the king-maker,” fitted out a
fleet on his own account, with which he attacked, in the Straits of
Dover, a fleet of _Genoese merchantmen_ bound for Lubeck, with a cargo
of Spanish merchandise, of which he captured six, rendered worthless
twenty-six, slaughtered one thousand of their crews, and plundered
merchandise to the value of 10,000_l._ sterling, with the loss, it is
said, of only fifty of his own men. In the face of such an act as this,
perpetrated by one of the most exalted of the English nobility, who
filled the highly responsible office of governor of Calais, the reader
of English history need not feel surprised at the acts of piracy which
too frequently disgrace its pages. On the dethronement of Henry VI.,
after an inglorious reign of nearly forty years, the Earl of March, who
had shortly before become Duke of York by his father’s death on the
field of Wakefield, was proclaimed king of England as Edward IV.
[Sidenote: Distress among shipowners, not royal favourites A.D. 1461.]
These intestine commotions and civil wars, combined with the impolicy
of the crown, had reduced the merchant shipping of England to a
state of great distress. A few merchants, however, during the long
but unfortunate reign of Henry VI. had been, by special favour,
enabled to realize large fortunes. John Taverner, a ship-owner of
Kingston-upon-Hull, having built in 1449 one of the largest merchant
vessels of the period, received a licence to take on board wool, tin,
lambs’-skins, hides, or any other merchandise, the property of English
or foreign merchants, and carry them to Italy, on “paying alien’s
duty.”[634] William Canynge, an eminent merchant of Bristol, who
sent his factors to foreign parts, was likewise favoured by letters
from the king to the grand master of Prussia and the magistrates of
Danzig, recommending to their good offices the representatives of “his
beloved and honourable merchant.”[635] Although prohibited by Act of
Parliament, Canynge, when mayor of Bristol, on account of services said
to have been rendered to the king, had a special licence to employ two
ships, of whatever burden he pleased, during two years, in the trade
between England and Iceland and Finmark, and to export any species
of goods not restricted by the staple of Calais.[636] Canynge appears
to have been one of the most important ship-owners of England of the
period. He is said to have possessed ships of four, five, and even
nine hundred tons burden, which were far above the average size of the
merchant vessels of the period. On one occasion he supplied Edward IV.
with two thousand six hundred and seventy tons of shipping, a fact
recorded on his famous monument in the church of St. Mary Redcliffe,
Bristol, itself one of the most beautiful structures of the fifteenth
century.[637]
[Sidenote: Fresh legislative enactments.]
[Sidenote: First “sliding scale,”]
As the commercial legislation of England, previously to the reign
of Edward IV., had been full of irregularities and inconsistencies,
exhibiting itself as at one time liberal in the extreme to foreigners
against its own subjects, at another retaliatory to its own prejudice
and unwise in its prohibitions; this monarch, on his accession to the
throne, introduced various legislative measures professing to regulate
upon something like fixed principles the maritime commerce of the
country. Thus Parliament, in the third year of his reign, granted the
king, for life, a subsidy of 3_s._ upon every tun of wine imported, and
a poundage of twelve pennies in perpetuity on the prime cost of all
goods exported or imported for the defence of the realm and especially
for the guard of the sea. Another Act in the same year, which had
for its object the encouragement of home manufactures, prohibited
foreigners from buying or shipping wool from either England or Wales;
and ordained, adopting the permissive principles of a former Act, that
no English merchant should ship any goods, outward or homeward, in
foreign vessels unless sufficient space could not be found in English
shipping.[638] In the following year the importation of corn, except
the produce of Wales, Ireland, or of the islands belonging to England,
was prohibited whenever wheat did not exceed 6_s._ 8_d._, rye, 4_s._,
and barley 3_s._ per quarter.
[Sidenote: applied to the importation of corn.]
Nor did these prohibitory and protective laws end here. Another
law[639] enacts, on the faith of “representations made by the male and
female artificers of London, and of other cities, towns, and villages
of England and Wales,” that as certain foreign articles were of
inferior quality, their importation be limited for a time by the king’s
pleasure; while the sale of woollen caps or cloths, ribands, fringes
of silk or thread, saddles, stirrups, harness, spurs, fire-tongs,
dripping-pans, dice, tennis-balls, purses, gloves, and innumerable
other articles, were entirely prohibited. It soon, however, became
apparent that the articles of foreign manufacture, which had been thus
prohibited, were far superior in quality to similar articles produced
in England; so that the change of the law, while greatly increasing
their cost, to the benefit, it is true, of the manufacturer, entailed a
corresponding loss upon those who were his customers.
[Sidenote: Relaxation of the laws by means of treaties, A.D. 1467.]
The Scottish Parliament, following the example of England, passed
several Acts of a similar character, all, no doubt, intended for the
advancement, but most of them probably operating for the obstruction,
of commerce. Experience soon proved to even the framers of these
prohibitory laws that considerable relaxation must be made. Indeed,
towards the close of the very year on which the most stringent of them
were passed, a treaty of alliance between England and Denmark allowed
the merchants of both countries free access to the ports of the other;
while a treaty between Edward and the Duke of Bretagne permitted the
subjects of both princes a mutual liberty of trade in all merchandise
not specially prohibited.[640]
[Sidenote: A.D. 1471.]
Various similar treaties appear to have been made in the fifth year of
Edward’s reign. Desirous of fortifying himself against the rival house
of Lancaster by the friendship of continental sovereigns, he entered
into treaties of offensive and defensive alliance with as many of the
neighbouring nations as possible, including the king of Castile, so
that the merchants of each country might, reciprocally, buy and sell
whatever merchandise they required, and be treated, in all respects,
the same as his own subjects.[641] Moreover, the English people
themselves soon perceived the evil effects of a prohibitory system, so
that, at their instigation, Edward, in the sixth year of his reign,
concluded a treaty with the Netherlands, whereby he and the Duke of
Burgundy agreed that, for thirty years, the subjects of both countries
were to have free access by land or water, with liberty to buy and
sell all kinds of merchandise, except warlike stores, on paying the
same duties as were established when formerly commerce had free course
between the two countries.[642] Soon afterwards similar commercial
treaties were made, with France, the towns of Flanders, and the people
of Zealand; and in the fourteenth year of his reign, Edward granted to
the Hanse merchants the absolute property of the Steelyard in London,
with certain other privileges, which they may be said to have enjoyed,
through various changes and vicissitudes, almost to our own time.[643]
He also favoured the merchants of Italy with an exemption from most of
the additional duties which had been imposed upon them during his own
and former reigns.[644]
[Sidenote: Treaties of reciprocity.]
[Sidenote: Extension of distant maritime commerce, A.D. 1485.]
These treaties of reciprocity greatly encouraged the ship-owners of
England in embarking on more distant voyages. Hitherto, their ships
had been confined almost exclusively to a coasting trade with the
Baltic and with the Spanish Peninsula. A few only of the more wealthy
and enterprising traders had ventured through the Straits of Gibraltar
to the Mediterranean ports; nor, indeed, had even they been able to
compete on equal terms with the larger vessels of the north of Europe
or with the still superior vessels of the Italian republics which,
throughout the middle ages, monopolised the most important and most
lucrative branches of the over-sea carrying trade. In the reign,
however, of Richard III., English merchants had increased their distant
operations to an extent sufficient to justify an application for the
appointment of an English consul at Pisa, who should have the power
of hearing and of summarily determining all disputes between English
subjects resident in Italy or belonging to ships frequenting the
ports of that country. Lorenzo Strozzi, a merchant of Florence, was,
consequently, at the request of the English merchants then in Italy,
appointed the first commercial representative of the English nation in
the ports of the Mediterranean.[645]
[Sidenote: First English consul in the Mediterranean, A.D. 1490.]
[Sidenote: The advantages derived from reciprocal intercourse.]
From this time the trade of England with the Mediterranean, conducted
in her own ships, steadily though slowly, increased. Five years
afterwards, a treaty with Florence enabled the English to resort
freely to all her territories, and carry thither any kind of lawful
merchandise, whether the produce of England or of other countries, not
even excepting those countries which might be at war with Florence.
On the other hand, the Florentines agreed not to admit any wool
produced in the English dominions, if imported in any vessels but those
belonging to subjects of England; while the English bound themselves
to carry every year to Pisa, the appointed staple port, as much wool
as used to be imported annually, on an average of former years, to all
the states of Italy, except Venice, unless circumstances, of which the
king should be judge, rendered this impracticable. Privileges, similar
to those which had been granted to the merchants of the Steelyard, were
also then allowed to an association of English traders in Italy. In
some respects, indeed, these were even more liberal. Besides having the
privilege of forming themselves into a corporate body at Pisa, with
power to frame their own regulations and to appoint their own officers,
they had placed at their disposal a suitable edifice or a site on which
to build one, and were to be independent of the jurisdiction of the
city, while enjoying all the advantages of its citizens or those of
Florence.[646]
From this period the business of the ship-owner may be considered as
distinct from that of the merchant, although, to the present day, many
of the latter are still owners of ships. For the first time English
ships were engaged in the trade between England and Italy as carriers
alone, deriving their remuneration entirely from the amount of freight
they earned. About this time, also, the spirit for discovery in far
distant and then unknown regions began to open up new and vast fields
of employment for merchant shipping, from which England, in after
years, derived greater advantages than any other nation.
FOOTNOTES:
[578] Rymer’s Fœd. v. p. 719; Macpherson i. pp. 544-5.
[579] In A.D. 1353; Rymer’s Fœd. v. p. 763.
[580] Rymer’s Fœd. vi. p. 659. The date of this famous treaty appears
to be Aug. 4, 1370. Macpherson i. p. 577.
[581] Stat. 37, Edw. III. cc. 5, 6.
[582] Stat. 42, Edw. III. c. 8.
[583] Stat. 1, 2, Rich. II. cc. 1, 2.
[584] Walsingham, pp. 227-553.
[585] Rymer’s Fœd., vol. vii. p. 233, and Macpherson i. p. 590. In A.D.
1383, a large Genoese ship bound to Flanders was driven by stress of
weather into Sandwich. Walsingham, p. 296.
[586] Stat. 1-5, Rich. II. c. 2.
[587] Ibid. c. 3.
[588] Among other persons, the Pope succeeded in carrying from the town
of Bristol, in 1382, a prodigious quantity of goods (the list is given
in full in Rymer’s Fœd. v. pp. 356-7, 577-90) _without paying any duty_.
[589] Rymer’s Fœd., vol. vii. p. 369.
[590] Stat. 1-6, Rich. II. c. 11.
[591] 7 Rich. II. c. 9.
[592] 7 Rich. II. c. 11.
[593] Ibid. c. 14.
[594] Stat. 12, Rich. II. cc. 3-9, A.D. 1388. These rigid rules seem to
have arisen from a reaction against the concessions extorted from the
feeble king by the insurrections of 1380 (Wat Tyler) and 1381.
[595] Stat. 1, Rich. II. c. 10.
[596] Stat. 1-6, Rich. II. c. 10.
[597] Stat. 2, Rich. II. cc. 7, 9.
[598] 14 Rich. II. c. 1.
[599] 14 Rich. II. c. 2.
[600] 14 Rich. II. cc. 4, 5.
[601] Fœdera, vol. viii. p. 96. It would seem that Waghen did not, on
this occasion, gain his object, as his letters of marque were renewed
in 1412 and 1414. Fœdera, v. p. 733.
[602] Fœdera, vol. viii. p. 318.
[603] It is, perhaps, worth remarking that, through the whole of this
period, the name of every vessel employed is carefully recorded on the
MSS., these names being almost as various as those at present existing.
[604] Knyghton col. 27-35.
[605] Sir H. Nicolas, from the various chronicles, &c., of the time,
has well traced the course of this French plundering expedition. (Hist.
Roy. Navy, ii. p. 260-264.) Mercer was ultimately crushed, not by
the “Royal Navy,” but by the courage and power of a London citizen,
John Philpott, who was created twice Lord Mayor in 1377 and 1378.
Walsingham, p. 213.
[606] Fœd., vol. vii. p. 220.
[607] Rot. Parl. iii. 63.
[608] Rot. Parl. ii. 42, iii. 46, quoted by Nicolas, ii. pp. 274-5.
[609] Here, again, the munificence of John Philpott is especially
noticed. Walsingham, p. 248.
[610] In July 1380. Walsingham, p. 249.
[611] The records of Parliament, at this period, are each year full of
these natural complaints, to which Richard and his ministers appear to
have paid little attention. See, especially, Rot. Parl. iii. p. 102.
s.a. 1382.
[612] Rymer, Fœd. v. pp. 195-97. Knyghton col. 2577. Stowe, p. 369.
This is believed to have been the first naval victory gained by the
king in person since the days of Alfred. Sir H. Nicolas suggests that
the gold nobles struck by Edward III. in 1344, on which the king is
represented standing in a large ship, were struck in allusion to, if
not in commemoration of, this action. (Hist. Roy. Navy, ii. p. 223.)
Selden quotes the lines:
“For foure things our noble sheweth to me,
King, shippe and sword, and power of the sea.”
_Mare Clausum_ ii. c. 25.
The same writer also gives this line:
“Thus made he _Nobles_ coyned of record,”
in honour, apparently, of the capture of Calais A.D. 1347.
[613] Chaucer is generally believed to have been born in 1328, and to
have died in 1400: it is certain that he flourished in the time of
Edward III. and of Richard II. The orthography of this extract is from
Bell’s ed. of Chaucer, 1855.
[614] Voluminous papers on this subject are given in Hakluyt, vol. i.
p. 157, _et seq._; with the letter of Henry IV. to the master-general
of Prussia, together with the treaty itself, and the Hanse-Towns
agreement.
[615] Rymer’s Fœdera, vol. viii. pp. 601-603. Hakluyt, vi. pp. 154-157.
There seems some doubt as to the date of this transaction. See
Macpherson, i. p. 625.
[616] Macpherson has collected from various sources all the details
of the disputes between the Hanse and English merchants, of which the
above is a condensed notice, vol. i. pp. 620-623, s.a. 1408-9.
[617] Rymer’s Fœd., vol. viii. p. 437.
[618] Rymer’s Fœdera, v. ix. p. 26-72.
[619] Ibid. v. ix. p. 13, ap.
[620] Fœdera, ix. pp. 215, 216-218, 238. Walsingham, p. 390.
[621] The same names of ships, and the place of their construction
(then called Hampton), are given in the “Dominion of the Sea,” as
preserved in Hakluyt, vol. i. See also the Chronicle of the Church
of the Holy Trinity at Winchester, in which, too, is a notice of the
action off Harfleur A.D. 1416. Sir H. Nicolas, quoting from the “Issue
Roll” of Henry V., states that 496_l._ was paid at Southampton for the
“Holy Ghost,” and 500_l._ for the “Grâce Dieu;” but this could have
been only a portion of the real cost of these ships. (Hist. Roy. Navy,
ii. 406.)
[622] Hakluyt, vol. i. pp. 187-203.
[623] The Emperor Sigismund came to London May 7, 1416, to try to make
peace between England and France.
[624] Query, Castile soap.
[625] The ancient word Easterlings or Osterlings (whence Sterling)
signifies from the east, and embraces the inhabitants of all the
seventy-two Hanse Towns.
[626] It used to be thought that “lodemenage” had some connection with
the mariner’s compass, but this is not the case. The word is a hybrid,
part English, part French, and means “pilotage.” It is used several
times in that sense in 3 George i. c. 13. Compare with it, “Loadsman”
(the priest), “Loadstar,” and “Loads-stone,” all agreeing in their
composition with “load,” _i.e._ some leading or guiding influence.
[627] See Treaty of Charles II. with the States-General.
[628] “The bonnet is belonging to another saile, and is commonly used
with none but the missen, maine, and fore-sailes, and the sprit-sailes.
I have seene, but it is very rare, a _top-saile bonnet_, and hold it
very useful in an easie gale, quarter-winde, or before a wind. This
is commonly one-third as deepe as the saile it belongs to; there is
no certaine proportion, for some will make the maine-sail so deep,
that with a showele bonnet, they will latch all the mast without a
drabbler.” Manwayring, Sir H., “Seamen’s Dictionary presented to the
late Duke of Buckingham,” Lond. 4to, 1644. See also “The Sailor’s
Word-Book,” by Admiral W. H. Smyth, Lond., 1867.
[629] Ordinance of Hastings. Sir Harris Nicolas has thrown some doubt
on this ordinance of King John, because we have no record that he
was ever at Hastings; on the other hand, Sir Travers Twiss—who is
supported in his view by Sir Duffus Hardy—shows that he may easily have
been there, and issued it in the second year of his reign, A.D. 1201.
(Black-Book, p. L.)
[630] This heavy expense doubtless applies to a time of war; but the
return speaks also of previous debts of Henry IV. on Calais which had
not been paid off.
[631] Fœdera, vol. v. p. 113.
[632] Act 9 Henry V. Stat. 1, ch. 10.
[633] To what extent England had been depopulated by the wars with
France, may be seen from the fact noticed in the Act 9 Henry V. Stat.
1-5, that the sheriffs were to remain in office, instead of being
changed annually, because a sufficient number of persons duly qualified
for the office could not be found.
[634] Fœdera, xi. p. 258.
[635] Ibid. xi. pp. 226-27.
[636] Fœdera, xi. p. 277.
[637] See interesting details of William Canynge (the ancestor of
George Canning), in “Illustrations of the History of Bristol,” p. 280,
1853, by S. Lucas, M.A., the first editor of “Once a Week.” Canynge’s
grandfather was mayor of Bristol six times, his father twice, and
himself five times.
[638] Act 3 Edward IV. c. i.
[639] Act 3 Edw. IV. c. 4.
[640] Fœdera, xi. p. 567.
[641] Ibid. xi. pp. 534-569, 572, 583.
[642] Fœdera, xi. p. 591. It is clear, also, from several notices in
the “Fœdera,” that Edward IV. was himself a considerable owner of
merchant vessels.
[643] Ibid. pp. 544-793.
[644] Rymer’s MS. Records, Edw. IV. vol. iii. p. 55.
[645] Fœd., xii. p. 270. Roscoe states that this Strozzi was still
alive so late as A.D. 1538 (Life of Lorenzo de’ Medici, c. 10). Henry
VII. appointed another English merchant, Christopher Spene, as consul
at Pisa (Fœd., xii. p. 314).
[646] Fœd., xii. p. 389.