are subject to "1. The measure of the preferential tariffs enjoyed by the Hansards can best be gauged by a comparison of the custom duties on cloth paid by English, Hanseatic and other alien merchants under the early Tudors. So jealously were their privileges guarded, that on one occasion the Hansards expelled a merchant who had paid larger customs than were due 3. In addition they enjoyed the right to sell certain commodities by retail, despite the prohibition against retail trading, to reside where they pleased and for any length of time. Anti-alien legislation always contained a saving clause in favour of their liberties. Even the city of London, which did not easily brook the violation of its privileges, appears to have raised little objection to the independence of the Hansards. In 1282 a composition was drawn up, by which the Hanseatic traders undertook to repair one of the city gates, Bishopsgate, and accept part responsibility for its custody, while in return the city ratified their franchises 5; a few years later (1305) they were also relieved of toll at Bishopsgate in consideration of their services. They retained the custody of Bishopsgate until 1461, when they were deprived of it for not keeping the gate in repair. The Hansards had sometimes occasion to complain that they were distrained for toll contrary to their agreement, and the justice of their contention was usually admitted. But friction occurred when the league abused its privileges, and 'coloured' the goods of other alien mer1 Wheeler, op. cit. 63. Schanz, Englische Handelspolitik, ii. 6. 3 Letter Book H, 278. (i.) 1363: Rot. Parl. ii. 275 b. (ii.) 1376: ibid. ii. 347 b; Letter Book H, 53. (iii.) 1439: Statutes, ii. 305. (iv.) 1465: ibid. ii. 411. Riley, Liber Albus, i. 485. The composition was renewed in 1427: Letter Book K, 46. Riley, Liber Custumarum, i. 112. Letter Book L, 13. 8 (i.) 1347: Letter Book F, 174. (ii) 1411: Letter Book I, 95--the composition there referred to is that of 1282 (and not 1237, as stated on page 95, n. 2; the composition of 1237 being that of London and Amiens). (iii.) 1418: ibid. 198. chants. In 1299 they were charged with harbouring strangers under pretext of their liberties, and avowing their goods as their own. This not only defrauded the king of his revenues, but also facilitated the concealment of bad money; and the practice was strictly forbidden 1. The London house of the Hansards was called the Steel- The Steelyard. yard. It was in their occupation as early as 13202, but they did not become actual owners till 1475, when the city council conveyed it to them. They were governed by an alderman and assistants, who ruled by merchant law 4. In the fifteenth century the alderman, at the merchants' own request, was appointed by the king-a sign of the friendly relations which often subsisted between the Hansards and those among whom they were settled 5. Even in the thirteenth century an alderman of the Hanse, Arnald, became a civic alderman ®, and in 1381 the mayor of London, William Walworth, was elected by the Hanse to be their alderman 7. On another occasion they made "a free-will offering" in relief of Dowgate Ward, when it was unable from poverty to raise its contribution for the defence of the city 8. Merchants of the Hanse also settled in provincial centres, of which the chief were Boston and Lynn. The Hanseatic merchants were not the only foreign traders who frequented these shores. The Gascons brought wine, which was the main article of import as wool was the main article of export; and the Flemings owned a Hanse in London 10. England also carried on relations with Venice, 1 Riley, Liber Custumarum, i. 196; and infra, p. 497. 2 Kingsford, Stow's Survey of London, ii. 319. For a description of the Steelyard see R. Pauli, "The Hanseatic Steelyard in London ", in Pictures of Old England. The Steelyard and the Teutonic Gildhall were at first distinct (Macpherson, Annals of Commerce, i. 691); but subsequently the terms were used interchangeably (Kingsford, op. cit. ii. 319). 3 Letter Book L, 127; Rot. Parl. vi. 123-124. 4 Wheeler, Treatise of Commerce, 63. 5(i.) 1425 Rot. Parl. iv. 303 a; (ii.) 1460: Letter Book K, 401. • Supra, p. 174. "Letter Book H, 158. The choice of a city magistrate in the year of the Peasants' Revolt was doubtless to secure official protection against attack. 8 Letter Book K, 403. • For the wine trade see A. L. Simon, The History of the Wine Trade in England (1906), which brings together the information on the subject. 10 The Flemish Hanse was formed in the thirteenth century by a number of cities, chiefly Flemish, but some belonging to N. France: E. Varenbergh, Relations diplomatiques entre Flandre et l'Angleterre (1874), 145 seq. Commercial intercourse with Venice. the greatest commercial city of the Middle Ages, and other 2 See E. Dixon, The Florentine Wool Trades in the Middle Ages", in Trans. Royal Hist. Soc. N.S. xii. 169. 3 Venetian State Papers, i. 7, No. 21 (1331). Ibid. 40, No. 138 (1400). Ibid. 3, No. 9. relations. period onwards England's trade with Venice grew in im- Disturbed portance. Almost from the very outset, however, the relations between the two countries were disturbed by incidents of violence and bloodshed. In 1319 a Venetian trader sold in London his cargo of sugar, and bought a quantity of wool at Boston; while conveying his purchases to Flanders he was attacked off the Wash by English pirates, and killed. Venice sent her first ambassador to England to demand reparation; but while the controversy was still pending a settlement, the Venetian Galleys reached Southampton in 1323, and the ill-feeling broke out in a serious affray which led to loss of life and property1. Complaints of injuries inflicted upon Venetian merchants continued at intervals to interrupt the current of commercial intercourse, and there were also disputes with custom-house officers 2. Venetian trade was bitterly criticized in the Libelle of English Polycye, and Italian merchants were attacked in the parliament of 1439. One petition dealt with the carrying trade. It set forth how formerly Italian traders brought only wines, spiceries and other merchandise from the countries that lie beyond the Straits of Gibraltar; this was not detrimental to the English navy, while imports were "at better cheap and price within this realm". But now they had also become the carriers of countries on this side of the Straits, Spain, Portugal, Brittany and others, whose commodities had hitherto been borne in their own or English ships. The result was an "outrageous increase in price" as well as great “hurt” to the navy, and the demand was put forward that Italians should only import commodities from beyond the Straits of Gibraltar 4. Another petition denounced "the great deceit that is used by Lombards, Italians, and by other merchants alien ", in selling spiceries that were not "clean cleansed nor clean garbled" 5. The wool merchants, some years later (1455), also vented the grievance that "merchant strangers Italians" bought woollen cloth, wool, wool-fells and tin in every part of the kingdom with ready money, and so made their purchases at reduced prices. They urged 1 Venetian State Papers, i. 3, No. 11; 5, No. 18. 2 Ibid. 46, No. 165 (1408). 4 Rot. Parl. v. 31 b. 3 Infra, p. 500. 5 Ibid. v. 32 a. that aliens should be allowed to buy these commodities only "in your ports of London, Southampton and Sandwich, where usually all merchants with galleys and carricks arrive, and in the town of Westminster". It is evident that the wool-dealers, like the clothiers in their relations with the cloth-workers 2, were seeking to compel the woolgrowers to accept truck payments, and were irritated at finding that they preferred to sell their wool for ready money to foreign purchasers. These petitions failed to move the government, but the silk-weavers were more successful, as we have seen 3, in their plea for protection. Edward IV. extended this protection to other branches of native industry, including woollen cloths, woollen caps, laces, ribbons, harnesses, purses, gloves, shoes, knives, daggers and pins. The hostility of London citizens, expressed in the petitions of 1439 and 1455, culminated in the riots which broke out against Italian traders in 1456 and 1457. A decree of the Senate (1457) prohibited all relations with the citizens of London. It stated that "by reason of the insult perpetrated by certain artificers and shopkeepers of London against the Italian nation to the risk of their lives and property, the merchants of the Italian nation—namely, the Venetians, Genoese, Florentines and Lucchese-met together, and after consultation determined that it was necessary to quit London for personal safety and security of their property; and for their asylum they selected Winchester, stipulating amongst themselves that no individual of the nations aforesaid might go to London or trade there". This resolution was now confirmed with the warning that : "if any man of the Venetian ships bound to England go to London as long as the merchants remain absent, the consul shall levy a fine from him of five hundred light livres ", and "should any one going to London buy or sell ", he should also forfeit the whole of what he bought or sold. Subsequently, however, the Italians returned to London. The last 1 Rot. Parl. v. 334 b. 2 Supra, p. 423. Supra, p. 319. 4 Statutes, ii. 396. Similarly, ibid. ii. 495. For the Yorkist protectionist policy in the cloth trade, see supra, p. 401. Venetian State Papers, 84, No. 339. See also Letter Book K, 385; Kingsford, Chronicles of London, 166; and supra, p. 463 (n. 3). |