CHAPTER VI

TRADE

The chapter on trade under the Stuarts may be introduced by certain extracts from a paper written by Sir Walter Raleigh early in the seventeenth century. It was called “Observations on Trade and Commerce,” in which he compares the Dutch trade and Dutch merchants with our own, very much to our disadvantage. The following, he says, are the seven points in which the Dutch surpass us:—

“1. The Merchant Staplers which maketh all Things in abundance, by reason of their Store-houses continually replenished with all kinds of Commodities.

2. The Liberty of free Traffick for Strangers to buy and sell in Holland, and other Countries and States, as if they were free-born, maketh great intercourse.

3. The small Duties levied upon Merchants, draws all Nations to trade with them.

4. Their fashioned ships continually freighted before ours, by reason of their few Mariners and great Bulk, serving the Merchant cheap.

5. Their forwardness to further all manner of Trading.

6. Their wonderful employment of their Busses for Fishing, and the great Returns they make.

7. Their giving free Custom inwards and outwards, for any new-erected Trade, by Means whereof they have gotten already almost the sole Trade into their hands.”

“Thus,” he goes on, “as regards the storing of merchandize, Amsterdam is never without a supply of 700,000 quarters of corn, which they keep always ready besides what they sell; and the like with other commodities, so that if a Dearth of Fish, wine, grain, or anything else begins in the country, forthwith the Dutch are ready with fifty or a hundred ships dispersing themselves at every ‘Port-Town’ in England, trading away their cargoes and carrying off English gold. Moreover, the Dutch have in their hands the greater part of the carrying trade of France, Portugal, Spain, Italy, Turkey, the East Indies, and the West Indies. Yet London is a much more convenient port for a store-house and for the carrying trade if our merchants would but bend their course for it.”

As for small duties in foreign countries compared with the excessive customs in ours. James, it will be remembered, relied on his Customs duties, which were heavy, thereby keeping off foreign trade. In Holland the Customs duties were so much lighter that a ship which would pay £900 in the port of London could be cleared at Amsterdam for £50. Raleigh points out that what is lost by lowering the duties is more than made up by the increase of trade when the duties are low. He advocates Free Trade, observe, long before that innovation was thought of.

By the “fashion” of the ships he means the Dutch merchant vessels called “Boyers, Hoy-barks, and Hoys,” constructed to contain a great bulk of merchandise and to sail with a small crew. Thus an English ship of 200 tons required a crew of thirty hands, while a ship of the same tonnage built in Holland wanted no more than nine or ten mariners.

{Transcription: CUSTOM HOUSE

_The_ Custom House _for the Port of_ London, _or Grand Office for the Management not only of the Affairs relating to y^e Exports and Imports of the Opulent City, but of the_ Customs _throughout_ England _according to the Regulations of Parliament. It was built by_ K. Charles _the_ 2^d. Anno _1668, at the Expence of above 10,000 Pounds, the former House being—consumed by the Fire of_ London. _It is a large and gracefull Building, fronting the Water side, very Comodious as well for the Commissioners and the several Officers and Clerks above Stairs, as the Ware houses underneath,—and the Cranes for Landing and Lading the Merch^{nts). Goods.—&c._}

Then, again, as to their “forwardness” in trading. In one year and a half the merchants of Holland, Hamburg, and Emden carried off from Southampton, Exeter, and Bristol alone near £200,000 in gold. And perhaps £2,000,000, taking the whole of the kingdom into account. The Dutch alone sent 500 or 600 ships every year to England, while we sent but thirty to Holland.

A warning and an example is presented by the fallen and decayed condition of Genoa. Formerly this city was the most prosperous of all trading cities. All nations traded there; but in an evil moment Genoa declared a Customs duty of 10 per cent, which caused the whole of her trade to vanish. Why, again, Raleigh asks, do we not secure for ourselves the magnificent fisheries which lie off our shores? In four towns within the Sound are sold every year between 30,000 and 40,000 casts of herrings, representing £620,000. In Denmark, Norway, Sweden, etc., are sold our herrings, caught on our shores, to the amount of £170,000. This fishery represents over a million sterling in addition to all this. They are herrings caught off our shores, and yet we have no share in this great trade.

The Dutch employ a thousand ships in carrying salt to the East Kingdoms; we none. They have 600 ships in the timber trade; we none; they send into the East Kingdoms 3000 ships every year; we 100 only. They carry goods from the East Kingdoms to France, Spain, Portugal, and Italy in 2000 ships; we have none in that trade. They trade to all the ports of France; we to five or six only. They trade with every one of our ports—with 600 ships; we with three only of these ports, and but forty ships.

We neglect to take advantage of what we have. For instance, we send to Holland our cloth undressed; we let them take, for purposes of trade, our iron, our coal, our copper, lead, tin, alum, copperas, and other things on which we might employ thousands of people, and this country, which produces nothing, is enriched by carrying commodities about the world.

The arguments of Raleigh in favour of taking up the fisheries appear elementary. He thus sums up the advantages:—

“1. For taking God’s blessing out of the Sea to enrich the Realm, which otherwise we lose.

2. For setting the People on work.

3. For making Plenty of Cheapness in the Realm.

4. For increasing of Shipping, to make the Land powerful.

5. For a continual Nursery for breeding and increasing our Mariners.

6. For making employment of all Sorts of People, as blind, lame, and others, by Sea and Land, from ten or twelve years and upwards.

7. For inriching your Majesty’s Coffers, by Merchandises returned from other Countries for Fish and Herrings.

8. For the increase and enabling of Merchants, which now droop and daily decay.”

The trade of London during the first half of the seventeenth century decayed. The decay was due partly to the monopoly of the privileged companies, which stifled or discouraged enterprise; partly to the civil wars; partly to the Customs duties; and partly, it would seem, to a falling off in the vigour and enterprise which had marked the Elizabethan period. In trade, as in everything, there are times of reaction and of torpor. Meantime, in spite of everything, foreign trade increased. But Raleigh’s comparison between the trade of Holland and that of London shows how small our foreign trade was, in comparison with the vast bulk carried on by the Dutch.

After Sir Walter Raleigh’s “observations” let me quote Howell on the profession or calling of the merchant:—

“For my part I do not know any profession of Life (especially in an Island) more to be cherished and countenanced with honourable employments than the Merchant-Adventurer (I do not mean only the staplers of Hamburgh and Rotterdam); for if valiant and dangerous actions do enoble a Man, and make him merit, surely the Merchant-Adventurer deserves more Honour than any; for he is to encounter not only with Men of all Tempers and Humours (as a French Counsellor hath it), but he contests and tugs oft-time with all the Elements; nor do I see how some of our Country Squires, who sell Calves and Runts, and their Wives perhaps Cheese and Apples, should be held more genteel than the noble Merchant-Adventurer who sells Silks and Satins, Tissues and Cloths of Gold, Diamonds and Pearl, with Silver and Gold.”

In the year 1606 James made an attempt to introduce the breeding of silkworms. He sent mulberry-trees into the country with instructions for the feeding of the worms. There was a certain amount of English-grown silk manufactured, as is shown by an entry in Thoresby’s _Diary_. “Saw at Mr. Gale’s a sample of the satin lately made at Chelsea of English silkworms, for the Princess of Wales, which was very rich and beautiful.” The experiment proved unsuccessful, yet it caused the immigration of a great number of silk throwsters, weavers, and dyers, who settled here and entered upon the silk trade in London. The raw silk was brought from India and China by the East India Company.

A table of imports from India in 1620 gives the most astonishing difference between the cost in India and the selling price in London (see Capper, _Port and Trade of London_, p. 82):—

+---------------------+--------------------------+---------------------------+ | Imports, 1620. | Cost on Board Ship | Selling Prices in London. | | | in India. | | +---------------------+---------+----------------+---------+-----------------+ | |_s._ _d._| £ _s._ _d._|_s._ _d._| £ _s._ _d._| |250,000 lbs. Pepper | 0 2-1/2| 2,604 3 4 | 1 8 | 20,833 6 8 | |150,000 lbs. Cloves | 0 9 | 5,625 0 0 | 6 0 | 45,000 0 0 | |150,000 lbs. Nutmegs | 0 4 | 2,500 0 0 | 2 6 | 18,750 0 0 | | 50,000 lbs. Mace | 0 8 | 1,666 13 4 | 6 0 | 15,000 0 0 | |200,000 lbs. Indigo | 1 2 |11,666 13 4 | 5 0 | 50,000 0 0 | |107,140 lbs. China | | | | | | Raw Silk| 7 0 |37,499 0 0 | 20 0 |107,140 0 0 | | 50,000 pieces Calico| 7 0 |17,500 0 0 | 20 0 | 50,000 0 0 | | | +----------------+ +-----------------+ | | |79,061 10 0 | |306,723 6 8 | +---------------------+---------+----------------+---------+-----------------+

In 1620 the East India Company established themselves at Madras, where they had a trade in diamonds, muslin, and chintzes in return for English or European goods. They had in their service 2500 mariners, 500 ship carpenters, and 120 factors.

The story of Cockaine’s patent should be (but it was not) a lesson in Free Trade. It was this man’s custom to send white cloth from England to Holland to be dyed and dressed, and then sent back for sale. Alderman Cockaine proposed to the King to do the dyeing and dressing himself if he had a patent. He represented that the whole profit made by the Dutch would be saved by this arrangement. The King consented; he prohibited the exportation of white cloth to Holland, and seized the charter of the Merchant Adventurers which allowed them to export it. The Dutch naturally retaliated by prohibiting the importation of English dye cloths. It was then discovered that Cockaine could not do what he proposed to do; his cloths were worse dyed and were dearer than those dyed by the Dutch. After seven years of complaints over this business, the patent was removed and the charter restored.

The following is a statement of the trade of England at this time:—

“We trade to Naples, Genoa, Leghorn, Marseilles, Malaga, etc., with only twenty ships, chiefly herrings, and thirty sail more laden with pipes-staves from Ireland.

To Portugal and Andalusia we sent twenty ships for wines, sugar, fruit, and West Indian drugs.

To Bordeaux we send sixty ships and barks for wines.

To Hamburgh and Middleburgh, thirty-five ships are sent by our Merchant Adventurers’ Company.

To Dantzic, Koningsburg, etc., we send yearly about thirty ships, viz. six from London, six from Ipswich, and the rest from Hull, Lynn, and Newcastle, but the Dutch many more.

To Norway we send not above five ships, and the Dutch above forty, and great ships too.

Our Newcastle coal trade employs 400 sail of ships; viz. 200 for supplying of London, and 200 for the rest of England.

And besides our own ships, hither, even to the mine’s mouth, come all our neighbouring nations with their ships continually, employing their own shipping and mariners. I doubt not whether, if they had such a treasure, they would employ not their own shipping solely therein. The French sail thither in whole fleets of fifty sail together, serving all their ports of Picardie, Normandie, Bretagne, etc., even as far as Rochel and Bordeaux. And the ships of Bremen, Emden, Holland, and Zealand supply those of Flanders, etc., whose shipping is not great, with our coals.

Our Iceland fishery employs 120 ships and barks of our own.

And the Newfoundland fishery 150 small ships.

And our Greenland whale fishery fourteen ships.

As for the Bermudas, we know not yet what they will do; and for Virginia, we know not what to do with it; the present profit of these two colonies not employing any store of shipping” (Capper, p. 84).

The completion of the New River in 1620 was a great boon and blessing to the people, but the greatest benefit to trade in the reign of James I. was the improvement of the navigation of the upper part of the Thames by deepening the channel, so that not only was Oxford placed in communication with London, but the country all round Oxford.

The granting of monopolies was an interference with trade which would now cause a revolution. There were many complaints. Parliament declared that all monopolies were void. That was under James. Charles began, notwithstanding, to sell monopolies to whomsoever would pay him most for them. Thus the importation of alum was prohibited, for the protection of the alum works of Whitby; also brick-making, the manufacture of saltpetre, of tapestry, the coining of farthings, the making of steel, the making of stone pots and jugs, making guns, melting iron ore, and many other things. More than this, Charles made the sale of tobacco a royal monopoly; he forbade the infant colony of Virginia to sell tobacco to any foreign state; he levied a duty of four shillings a chaldron on all coal exported to foreign parts; and he actually endeavoured to establish a malting and a brewing monopoly. When we read the historian on the despotic acts of Charles and his attempts on the liberties of his people, let us bear in mind the constant exasperations of these interferences with trade—that is, with the livelihood of the people. When at last he became awakened to the danger of the position, he revoked all their “grants, licences, and privileges”; but it was then too late—revolution had already arisen.

Shops which had been open stalls confined to one or two markets in London, such as East and West Chepe, began, towards the end of the sixteenth century and early in the seventeenth, to appear along Fleet Street, the Strand, and in King Street, Westminster. Haberdashers, milliners, woollen drapers, cutlers, upholsterers, glassmen, perfumers, and others established themselves everywhere, making so brave a show every day, that, as Stow complains, “the people of London began to expend extravagantly.” There were offered, among other wares, “French and Spanish gloves, and French cloth or frigarde (frieze), Flanders-dyed kersies, daggers, swords, knives, Spanish girdles, painted cruses, dials, tables, cards, balls, glasses, fine earthen pots, salt-cellars, spoons, tin dishes, puppets, pennons, ink-horns, toothpicks, silk, and silver buttons. All which ‘made such a show in passengers’ eyes, that they could not help gazing on and buying these knicknacks.’ This great offence a contemporary writer, quoted by Stow, bitterly apostrophises. He ‘marvels’ that ‘no man taketh heed to it what number of trifles cometh hither from beyond the seas, that we might either clean spare, or else make them within our own realm; for the which we either pay inestimable treasure every year, or else exchange substantial wares and necessaries for them, for the which we might receive great treasure.”

There had then arisen outside the City a new class, and one which was becoming wealthy and important, namely, the suburban shopkeepers. They were certainly not a class that Charles could afford to exasperate. But apparently he never asked himself how far it was prudent to exasperate any class. Thus, in the blindness of his wrath against the Puritans, whose emigration was the best thing that could happen to him, he forbade them to emigrate without a certificate of having taken the oath of allegiance and supremacy, and likewise from the minister of their parish a certificate of their conversation and conformity to the orders and discipline of the Church of England. He therefore did what he could to preserve his own enemies in his kingdom, and to increase their hostility. Again, he ordered that the Weavers’ Company should admit to its freedom none but members of the Church of England. He even interfered with trade to the extent of trading on his own account, on one occasion buying up all the pepper imported by the East India Company and selling it again at a profit.

The foundation of the banking business is said to date from the outbreak of the Civil War; perhaps it was partly due to that event. Banking was impossible in earlier times for several reasons: there was no system of commercial credit; there were no bank-notes; goods were bought or sold for actual coin; there was no Exchange; when men went abroad or came home, they had to take their foreign money to the Mint for re-coinage, or they had to get foreign money at the Mint; there was no recognised system of lending or borrowing; if a man borrowed money he did so as a special occasion and for a special purpose, and paid a large interest for the accommodation. The money-lenders were the Jews first, who carried on the trade as a Royal monopoly, followed by the Lombards, who came as the agents of Papal taxation; and afterwards the London merchants and goldsmiths.

When the Civil War broke out it became a serious consideration with the merchants to place their money in some place of security. The Mint, their former place of deposit, could not be trusted because Charles had already seized upon £200,000 belonging to merchants, and placed there for safety; their own strong rooms would not do, because if the City fell into the hands of the Royalists, the strong room would most certainly be plundered first.[8] They therefore began to lodge their cash in the hands of goldsmiths, keeping what was called a “running cash” account. They probably thought that in case of need the goldsmiths could take their money and plate abroad. Country gentlemen also began to send their money up to London for greater security. This method was found so convenient that banking quickly spread and the bankers began to flourish. During the Commonwealth one Henry Robinson proposed the establishment of a “Land Bank,” with branches in the country to lend money upon mortgage, the payments to be by paper.

The wars with the Dutch and the extraordinary developments of French industries caused our imports to vastly exceed our exports; every maid-servant, it was said, paid the French King half her wages; when peace came and trade was recovering, the madness of Charles II. in closing the Exchequer paralysed and ruined the City for a while. Never did monarch inflict a blow so cruel upon his people. And never did the Stuarts recover the confidence which this measure lost them.

The Plague of 1665, followed by the Fire, proved, as might be expected, a temporary check to the prosperity of the City. But the people kept up their courage.

After the Fire there was built, in place of Gresham’s Exchange, which had been burned, a new Royal Exchange of which the first stone was laid by King Charles II.

The increase of trade, although petty trade, in the West was recognised in the foundation of the New Exchange, an institution which has been mostly overlooked by historians.

“This building was erected by Robert, Earl of Salisbury, somewhat after the shape of the Royal Exchange, having cellars underneath and paved walks above with rows of shops. The first stone was laid on the 10th of June 1608. It was opened by King James I., April 10th, 1609, who came attended by the Queen, the Duke of York, the Lady Elizabeth, and many great lords and ladies, but it was not successful” (_Stow_).

“In the Strand on the N. side of Durham House stood an olde long stable, the outer wall whereof on the street side was very olde and ruinate, all which was taken down and a stately building sodainely erected in the place by Robert, E. of Salisbury, Lord High Treasurer of England. The first stone of this beautiful building was laid the 10th of June last past, and was fully finished in November following. And on Tuesday, the 10th April, the year (1609), many of the upper shoppes were richly furnished with wares, and the next day after that, the King, Queen and Prince, the Lady Elizabeth and the D. of York, with many great Lordes and chief ladies, came thither, and were there entertained with pleasant speeches, gifts, and ingenious devices: there the King gave it a name and called it Britain’s Burse” (Nich., _Progresses_, vol. ii. p. 248).

The exports and the imports of London during fifty years of this century are thus tabulated. It will be seen that they show a steady increase in the bulk of trade:—

Exports. Imports.

1614 2,090,640 2,141,283 1622 2,320,436 2,619,315 1663 2,022,812 4,016,019 1669 2,063,274 4,196,139

The prosperity of the country was shown by the contemporary writers to have been advancing steadily and rapidly, in spite of the civil wars, the Dutch wars, the pestilence which on five separate occasions devastated the country and the City, and the Great Fire which destroyed all the “Stock” of the merchants. Sir William Petty (1676) observes that the number of houses in London was double that of 1636, and that there had been a great increase of houses in many towns of the United Kingdom, that the Royal Navy was four times as powerful as in later years, that the coal trade of Newcastle had quadrupled, the Customs yielded three times their former value, that more than 40,000 tons of shipping were employed in the Guinea and American trade, that the King’s revenue was trebled, and that the postage of letters had increased from one to twenty.

Davenant also (1698) speaks twenty years later to the same effect. He shows that the value of land had risen from twelve years’ purchase in former times to fourteen, sixteen, and twenty years’ purchase in 1666; and by the end of the century to twenty-six or even more; that great quantities of waste land had been enclosed and cultivated; that the merchant marine had doubled between 1666 and 1688; that many noble buildings had been erected; that the Customs duties had increased in twenty years by a third; that the standard of comfort among the working-classes was greatly improved; and that property in cattle, stock-in-trade, and personal effects had risen from £17,000,000 in 1600 to £88,000,000 in 1688.

As already mentioned, the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes brought to this country some 70,000 of the most highly skilled artificers. Many thousands settled in the suburbs of London, especially in Bethnal Green, Spitalfields, and St. Giles. Among the things they made or prepared were “light woollens, silk, linen, writing-paper, glass, hats, lute-string, silks, brocades, satins, velvets, watches, cutlery, clocks, jacks, locks, surgeons’ instruments, hardware, and toys” (_Capper_, p. 103).

These refugees gave the country a large and valuable industry in silk-weaving; it is also supposed that the manufacture of fine paper was due to the French immigrants. In 1670 the Duke of Buckingham brought Venetians over here who introduced the manufacture of fine glass.

The making of linen cloth and tapestry was encouraged by an Act of 1666, which offered special advantages to those who set up the trade of hemp dressing. In 1669 certain French Protestants settled at Ipswich and engaged in this trade.

The old industry of woollen cloth was protected by the prohibition to export wool. In 1666 a law was passed directing that every one should be buried in wool, and the clergy were required to take an affidavit to that effect at every interment.

In 1676 the printing of calicoes was commenced in London. A writer of the day says that “instead of green say, that was wont to be used for children’s frocks, is now used painted and Indian and striped calico, and instead of perpetuam or shalloon to line men’s coats with is used sometimes glazed calico, which in the whole is not a shilling cheaper, and abundantly worse.”

An Act passed in 1662 forbade the importation of foreign bone lace, cut work, embroidery, fringe, band-strings, buttons, and needlework on the ground that many persons in this country made their living by this work.

The art of tinning plate-iron was brought over from Germany. The first wire-mill was also put up at this period by a Dutchman.

In short, the development of the arts was largely advanced during the century, and almost entirely by foreigners—French, German, Venetian, and Dutch.

The income of the Crown does not belong to the history of London, except that the City furnished a large part of it. That of Charles II. was ordered by the Parliament, August 31, 1660, to be made up to £1,200,000 a year. To raise this sum various Acts were passed. Thus there was the subsidy called “tonnage” levied upon foreign wine, and that called “pundage” levied upon the export and import of certain commodities. These taxes were collected at the Custom House. There was also the excise upon beer, ale, and other liquors sold within the kingdom. There was the tax of hearth money, which was two shillings upon any fire, hearth, or stove in every house worth more than twenty shillings a year. There were also the Royal lands, such as the Forest of Dean, the duties on the mines in the Duchy of Cornwall, the first-fruits and tenths of church benefices, the Post Office, etc. Other duties were laid occasionally on land, on personal property, on the sale of wine, etc. It must be remembered, however, that the King maintained out of this income the Fleet and the Army.

The coinage current in London consisted of more kinds than the present simpler system. In gold there were sovereigns, half-sovereigns, crowns, and half-crowns; in silver, crowns, half-crowns, shillings, sixpences, half-groats, pennies, and halfpennies. To this there were added from time to time the Thistle crown of four shillings, the Scottish six pound gold coin valued at ten shillings, the French crown called “The Sun,” valued at seven shillings. There were also farthing tokens in lead, tin, copper, and leather.

Ben Jonson shows us what kind of money was carried about. “The man had 120 Edward’s shillings, one old Harry sovereign, three James shillings, an Elizabeth groat: in all twenty nobles”—a noble was worth 7s. 2d.; “also he had some Philip and Marias, a half-crown of gold about his wrist that his love gave him, and a leaden heart when she forsook him.”

“Before the reign of James I. nothing beyond pennies and halfpennies in silver appear to have been attempted to supply the poor with a currency. In 1611 Sir Robert Cotton propounded a scheme for a copper coinage; this was not, however, carried out. A scheme to enrich the king produced the farthing token, weighing six grains, and producing 24s. 3d. for the pound weight of copper; half the profit was to be the king’s and the other half the patentee’s. The first patent was granted to Baron Harrington of Exton, Rutlandshire, April 10, 1613, and a Proclamation was issued May 19, 1613, forbidding the use of traders’ tokens in lead, copper, or brass. The new coin was to bear, on the one side, the King’s title, ‘Jaco. D. G. Mag. Bri., two sceptres through a crown;’ on the reverse, ‘Fra. et. Hib. Rex., a harp crowned.’ The mint mark, a rose. A Proclamation was published June 4, 1625, prohibiting any one from counterfeiting this coin. Upon the death of Lord Harrington, in 1614, the Patent was confirmed to Lady Harrington and her assigns; subsequently it was granted to the Duke of Lennox and James, Marquis of Hamilton, and on the 11th of July 1625 to Frances, Duchess Dowager of Richmond and Lennox, and Sir Francis Crane, Knight, for seventeen years, the patentees paying to the King one hundred marks yearly. By a Proclamation issued in 1633, the counterfeiters of these tokens were, upon conviction, to be fined £100 apiece, to be set on the pillory in Cheapside, and from thence whipped through the streets to Old Bridewell, and there kept to work; and when enlarged, to find sureties for their good behaviour. On the 3rd of August 1644 the Mayor, Aldermen, and Commons of the City of London petitioned the House of Commons against the inconvenience of this coin, and the hardship suffered by the poor in consequence. No farthing tokens being issued during the Commonwealth, private persons were under the necessity of striking their own tokens. The practice being, however, contrary to law, was subsequently prohibited by a Proclamation issued August 16, 1672. It further appears, by an advertisement in the _London Gazette_, No. 714, September 23, 1672, that an office called the ‘Farthing Office’ was opened in Fenchurch Street, near Mincing Lane, for the issue of these coins on Tuesday in each week, and in 1673–4 an order was passed to open the office daily. These measures not proving effectual to prevent private coinage of tokens, another Proclamation was issued on October 17, 1673, and another on December 12, 1674. These farthing tokens encountered the contempt and scorn of all persons to whom they were tendered, as being of the smallest possible value. Sarcastic allusions were made to them by dramatists, poets, and wits. ‘Meercroft,’ in Ben Jonson’s _Devill is an Asse_, Act ii. sc. 1, played in 1616, alludes to this coin and its patentee” (_Index to Remem._ pp. 89, 90, _note_).

In 1694 the London tradesmen began to cry out about the badness of the coinage; vast numbers of halfpence and farthings were forged, and the chipping of the silver went on almost openly. The Government resolved on an entirely new issue, which was complete in 1699.

It was not a time of universal prosperity; witness the following account of the Grocers’ Company (Ninth Report, Historical MSS.):—

“27th March 1673. The Grocers’ proposal for payment of their debts. The Company’s year rents and revenues amount to only £722:5:4, and are charged with a yearly payment of £7571:19:8 in charity. Their debts are £24,000. In 1640 they lent the king £4500, for repayment whereof some of the Peers became bound. In 1642 they advanced £9000 for suppressing the Irish Rebellion. In 1643 they lent the City of London £4500. The principal and interest of these several debts, still owing to the Company as aforesaid, amount to above £40,000. The greater part of their estate was in houses burnt down in the late Fire, and since leased out for 60, 70, and 80 years, by decrees made in the late Court of Judicature established by Act of Parliament. The several sums they owe were voluntarily lent them. They propose that £12,000 be raised by voluntary subscriptions and equally distributed among all their creditors within six months; that, to discharge the rest of their debt, the debts owing to the Company be assigned to trustees; that a special memorandum be entered in the Company’s books, that, in case the creditors be not satisfied by the means proposed, the Company shall, if ever in a capacity hereafter, pay the whole remainder to every creditor; and that, on performance of these proposals, the Company be absolutely discharged from all their debts. Meanwhile all prosecutions against the Company to be stayed, that the Company may be animated cheerfully to raise the money. The Company submit, in conclusion, that a Hall encumbered and not half finished is all the Company of Grocers have to encourage their members to a voluntary contribution to satisfy debts contracted before most of them were born, and before all the residue, save some few only, were free of the Company. (Offered this day, having been called for by the Committee on the 24th. Rejected as ‘not satisfactory’ on the 28th. Com. Book of date.)

28th March. Answer of the Appellants. The Company, besides their £722:15:4 for rents in England, have an estate of nearly £400 rental in Ireland, and their Hall, with appurtenances worth £200 a year more. The lands charged with charitable uses are expressly excepted by the decree. The estate is let at quit-rents, and, if rack-rented, would yield another £12,000. The yearly contributions of members amount to another £1000.

Their disbursements in 1671 were:— £ s. d. For payment for dinners and collations 172 13 10 To the Wardens 12 10 0 Corn money 25 0 0 Reparation of their Hall 281 4 6 In Gratuity given 89 0 0 Suit in Chancery and in Parliament with Appellants 89 8 11 Lord Mayor’s Day 44 4 0 Interest money 46 14 0

Besides this they can at pleasure raise in a month’s time, by fines for offices and calling to livery, £4000. Most of their debts are recent. Their loans to the City should be sued for by themselves. The loan of 1643 was to defend the City against the King. The Company did not suffer much by the Fire, as most of their estate was let on long leases. All the creditors have received one-sixth of their claims, except the Cholmleys, who have been promised payment since the decree, but have received nothing. The Company itself is willing to pay its debts, but is prevented by a small minority, who are the authors of the proposal, and dishonestly deny liability. Appellants cannot agree to stand equally with the rest of the creditors, who refused to join them at first before the suit commenced, and only sued the Company at its own litigation, with a view to forestall Appellants. They cannot accept the Grocers’ proposals in lieu of the decree they hold. The Company have already offered more favourable terms, which have been refused. The Hall is actually sequestered, and was so before its conveyance to the Lord Mayor, etc. of London, as Governors of Christ’s Hospital. The Company’s estate is sufficient to cover their claim, in which Appellants are supported by several members of the Company itself. If the Company will give good personal security to discharge their debts in seven years, and to pay at once the sixth part of the principal to the Cholmleys, with interest from the time others had it, with costs, Appellants will accept these terms, assign over their sequestration, and help them to pay their other creditors; otherwise they pray the sale may be enforced. (Put in this day, but rejected by the Grocers’ Counsel. Com. Book of date.”)

Another company was also struggling with difficulties, as the following extract from the same Report shows:—

“10th March, 1675. The petition of the Master, Warden, Assistants and Commonaltie of the Corporation of Pin-makers, London, to the King; with paper of proposals attached thereto Reminding his Majesty of a contract made between Him and their Company, for the benefit alike of His Majesty and the London Pin-makers, that came to nought in consequence of the Great Plague and the Dutch, the Pin-makers beg for an aid of £20,000—£10,000 thereof to be laid out in wire, to be bought of His Majesty at 30d. per hundred weight about the current rate of such wire; and the other £10,000 thereof to be used as a fund by Commissioners, and the pins being distributed to buyers at a cost sufficient only to cover the charge of production. By operation of the scheme, embodied in these proposals, it is urged the trade of the pin-making will revive, the pin-makers will have full and lucrative employment, and his Majesty will by his profit on the wire receive a revenue of at least £4000 per annum.”

The most important civic event in the reign of William was the foundation of the Bank of England. The bankers of the City had been, as we have seen, the goldsmiths, who not only received and kept money for their customers, but lent it out, for them and for themselves, on interest. Thus, when Charles the Second, on January 2, 1672, closed the Exchequer, his creditors could obtain neither principal nor interest. He then owed the goldsmiths of London the sum of £1,328,526. Some of the older banks of London trace a descent to the goldsmiths of the seventeenth century—Child’s, for instance, Hoare’s, and others.

The idea of a National Bank seems to have been considered and discussed for some years before it was carried into effect. The principal advocate of the scheme was a Scotchman named William Anderson. The advantages which he put forward in defence of the Bank were the support of public credit and the relief of the Government from the ruinous terms upon which supplies were then raised. There was great difficulty in getting the scheme considered, but it was at last passed by an Act of Parliament in 1693. By the terms of this Act it was provided that the Government should take a loan of £1,200,000 from the Bank, this amount to be subscribed; additional taxes were imposed which would produce about £140,000 a year, out of which the Bank was to receive £100,000 a year, including interest at 8 per cent, and £4000 a year for management. The Company was empowered to purchase lands, and to deal in bills of exchange and gold and silver bullion, but not to buy or sell merchandise, though they might sell unredeemed goods on which they had made advances.

The subscription for the £1,200,000 was completed in ten days. The Bank began its business on July 27, 1694.

Its offices were at first the Grocers’ Hall, where they continued until the year 1743. In this year the new building, part of the present edifice, was completed.

Maitland describes it as

“A most magnificent structure; the front next the street is about 80 feet in length, adorned with columns, entablature, etc., of the Ionick order. There is a handsome courtyard between this and the main building, which, like the other, is of stone, and adorned with pillars, pilasters, entablature, and triangular pediment of the Corinthian Order. The hall is 79 feet in length, and 40 in breadth, is wainscotted about 8 feet high, has a fine fretwork ceiling, and a large Venetian window at the west end of it. Beyond this is another quadrangle, with an arcade on the east and west sides of it: and on the north is the Accomptant’s Office, which is 60 feet long, and 28 feet broad. There are handsome apartments over this and the other sides of the quadrangle, with a fine staircase adorned with fretwork; and under it are large vaults, that have very strong walls and iron gates for the p reservation of the cash.”

By the charter they constituted a Governor, who must have £4000 in Bank stock; a Deputy Governor, who must have £3000; and twenty-four Directors, who must have £2000 each.

The Bank, although a year or two after its foundation its utility was fully recognised by merchants, did not command complete confidence for many years. Pamphlets were written against it. They were answered in 1707 by Nathaniel Tench, a merchant. The defence is instructive. Maitland sums it up:—

“The chief purpose of this defence was to vindicate a corporation, and the management thereof; not so much from crimes they had already been guilty of in the experiment of eleven or twelve years, as the fear of what they might do hereafter.”

The charter of the Bank was renewed in 1697 to 1711; in 1708 to 1733; in 1712 to 1743; in 1742 to 1765; in 1763 to 1786; in 1781 to 1812; and so on. There have been times of tightness. In 1697 the Bank was forced to suspend partially payment in coin, giving 10 per cent once a fortnight, and afterwards at the rate of 3 per cent once in three months. In 1720 it escaped the disaster of the South Sea Bubble. In 1745, when London was thrown into a panic by the approach of the Pretender, there was a run upon the Bank. This was staved off by paying slowly in silver. In the year 1797, by an order in Council, last payments were suspended. These events, however, belong to the after history of the Bank.

The foundation of the Bank of England brought about a complete revolution in the relations of Crown and City. We have seen that hitherto the City was called the King’s Chamber; when the King wanted money he sent to the City for a loan; sometimes he asked more than the City could lend; generally the City readily conceded the loan.

In a note, Sharpe calls attention to the absurdity of representing the Chancellor of the Exchequer going about, hat in hand, borrowing £100 of this hosier and £100 from that ironmonger:—

“The mode of procedure was nearly always the same. The lords of the treasury would appear some morning before the Common Council, and after a few words of explanation as to the necessities of the time, would ask for a loan, offering in most cases undeniable security. Supposing that the Council agreed to raise the required loan, which it nearly always did, the mayor for the time being was usually instructed to issue his precept to the aldermen to collect subscriptions within their several wards, whilst other precepts were (in later times at least) sent to the master of wardens of the livery companies to do the same among the members of their companies. There were times, also, when the companies were called upon to subscribe in proportion to their assessment for supplying the City with corn in times of distress” (_London and the Kingdom_, vol. ii. pp. 586, 587).

The last loan ever asked by the King of the City was that asked by William the Third in 1697 to pay off his navy after the Peace of Utrecht. Instead of going to the City the King went to the Bank, but not then without the authority of Parliament. The City was no longer to be the Treasurer—or the Pawnbroker—of the King and the nation. This event, though the citizens did not apprehend its full meaning for many years, deprived London of that special power which had made her from the Norman Conquest alternately the object of the Sovereign’s affections or of his hatred. Henceforth it mattered nothing to London whether the King loved or hated her. The power of the City was now exercised legitimately by her representatives in the House of Commons.