CHAPTER XII.

The accession of William the Conqueror to the throne of England produced important changes in the maritime affairs of that country, and gave to its over-sea commerce greatly increased security and stability. In their anxiety to recover the throne of Canute, the Danes had prepared a fleet for the purpose of invasion, which obliged the Conqueror to summon to his aid the whole of the naval resources of the island. Dover, Sandwich, and Romney were each called upon to provide, at their own expense, twenty vessels, equipped for sea, with crews of twenty-one men and provisions for fifteen days.[526] Rye and Winchelsea rendered similar assistance, and in return had conferred on them privileges similar to those which had been granted to the former places by Edward the Confessor. These ports were then for the first time styled the Cinque Ports, by which distinctive title they have ever since been known. Other ports had also to provide their quota. The fleet thus provided by the Conqueror was so fully maintained by Rufus, his second son and successor, that the learned Selden dates England’s maritime supremacy from that very early period. Still, for more than a century after the Conquest, her ships seldom ventured beyond the Bay of Biscay on the one hand, or the entrance to the Baltic on the other; and there is no record of any long voyages by English ships until the time of the Crusades, which, whatever they may have done for the cause of the Cross, undoubtedly gave the first great impetus to the shipping of England. The number of rich and powerful princes and nobles, who embarked their fortunes in these extraordinary expeditions, offered the chance of lucrative employment to any nation which could supply the requisite amount of tonnage; and English shipowners made great exertions to reap a share of the gains.

The Earl of Essex appears to have been the first English nobleman who fitted out an expedition for the Holy Land, while, twelve years afterwards, Richard Cœur de Lion, on ascending the throne, made vast levies on the people for the same object; and, with the aid of Philip II. of France and of other princes, resolved to attempt to save the Cross from the grasp of the Infidels. Extraordinary exertions were made throughout both countries to provide the requisite armaments; and, towards the close of 1189, two fleets had been collected, one at Dover, to convey Richard and his followers (among whom were the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Bishop of Salisbury, and the Chief Justice of England) across the Channel; and a second and still larger one at Dartmouth, consisting of numerous vessels from Normandy, Poitou, Brittany, and Aquitaine, for the conveyance of the great bulk of the Crusaders, to join Richard at Marseilles.

This expedition from Dartmouth set sail, under the command of Robert de Sabloil and Richard de Camville, towards the end of April 1190, and, after a disastrous voyage, showing clearly the incompetence alike of both officers and ships, succeeded in reaching Lisbon, where they committed such a series of disgraceful outrages upon the inhabitants, that seven hundred of them were for a time imprisoned: thence, they passed on, and at length, on the 22nd of August, reached Marseilles, from which, after a brief delay for necessary repairs, they followed the kings to the Straits of Messina, where they were all assembled on the 14th of September.[527]

Vinisauf[528] has described in glowing language the appearance of the fleet as it entered Messina. “As soon as the people heard of its arrival,” he says, “they rushed in crowds to the shore to behold the glorious king of England, and at a distance saw the sea covered with innumerable galleys, and the sounds of trumpets from afar, with the sharper and shriller blasts of clarions, sounded in the rear, and they beheld the galleys rowing in order nearer to the land, adorned and furnished with all manner of arms, countless pennons floating in the wind, ensigns at the ends of the lances, the beaks of the galleys distinguished by various paintings, and glittering shields suspended to the prows. The sea appeared to boil with the multitude of the rowers. The clangour of their trumpets was deafening; the greatest joy was testified at the arrival of the various multitudes, when thus our magnificent king, attended by crowds of those who navigated the galleys, as if to see what was unknown to him, or to be beheld by those to whom he was unknown, stood on a prow more ornamented and higher than the others, and, landing, displayed himself elegantly adorned to all who pressed to the shore to see him.”

It was not, however, till the following year (April 10) that the fleet actually got under weigh for the Holy Land, numbering one hundred ships[529] (that is, of a larger kind), and fourteen busses. Each of the large ships carried, it is said, besides her crew of fifteen sailors, forty soldiers and forty horses, and provisions for one twelvemonth. The commander was also aided by fourteen other picked men, whom the chronicler calls “slaves.” But these, and other accounts of the capacity of ancient vessels are, like too many of the tales about shipping, not now reconcilable. We can only account for the numerous discrepancies as to the size of the vessels and the number of men and horses embarked, by some misapprehension on the part of the writers, or by some confusion in their application of the nautical expressions used by ancient writers, few of whom had any practical knowledge of the subject.

Vinisauf describes the fleet as proceeding in the following order. Three large ships, filled with soldiers and stores, formed the van. The second line consisted of thirteen vessels, described as “dromons and busses;”[530] the third of fourteen vessels; the fourth of twenty; the fifth of thirty; the sixth of forty, and the seventh of sixty; the king himself, with all his galleys, forming the eighth line, and thus bringing up the rear for the better protection, as was considered, of the whole convoy. The lines were sufficiently near for a trumpet to be heard from one to the other; and each ship also was near enough to her consort to communicate by hailing. But though such an order of sailing might have succeeded during fine weather, the fleet was soon after dispersed during a gale off Ætna, the crews being “sea-sick and frightened;” while three ships were wholly lost on the island of Cyprus and their crews drowned, together with the Vice-Chancellor of England, whose body was washed on shore, with the Great Seal tied round his neck.

After the successful capture of Acre, and a truce, as its consequence, with Saládin, Richard set out for England, where, however, he did not arrive till 13th March, 1194. On landing at Sandwich, he was received “amidst the joyful acclamations of his subjects,” or, as we may presume, of those chiefly who dwelt in the seaport towns; for these could hardly have failed to greet joyfully a monarch who had opened out the means of affording ample and lucrative employment to their shipping and seafaring population. Nor, indeed, were the merchants less handsomely remunerated; for to them, the progress of the Crusades procured the opportunity of developing many new and valuable markets for commercial enterprise.

Prevented by the jealousy and the restrictive policy of the Italian cities, English traders had hitherto not ventured on voyages so distant as the Levant, the general policy of the republics of the south throwing various difficulties in the way of foreign shipping. By the Crusades, however, the eyes of English merchants and mariners were alike opened to the successful undertakings of the Mediterranean traders; to them also is largely due the constitution of England’s first shipping code, based, as this was, on more ancient laws, with many improvements derived from the increased knowledge due to the recent experience of her mariners.[531]

By the first article in these laws a master had power to pledge, with the advice of his mariners, the tackle of the ship for the necessary provisions; but could not sell the hull without special authority from the owners. Previously, it had not been thought safe to entrust any one with the command of a ship unless he was a part owner or a freeman; but, by the laws of Richard I., these restrictions were abolished, and the qualifications and duties of the captain for the first time defined by statute. Everything on board being placed under the master’s care, he was required to understand thoroughly the art of piloting and navigation, that he might control the pilot. In a merchantman, the first officer was then practically the master, the second, the pilot;[532] the third, the mate; the fourth, the factor or supercargo; then followed his assistant, and after him came the accountants, surgeon, steward, four corporals, cook, gunner, and coxswain, the two latter having their quarters before the mast with the ship’s crew, but receiving higher wages.

By the second article if a vessel lay in port, waiting for weather and a wind, the master was instructed, when the time for departure arrived, to call together his ship’s company and inquire what they thought of the wind and weather. A difference of opinion arising, he was bound to be guided by the majority, and was legally responsible, if any accident happened, to make good damages caused by his unsupported act. It was, in fact, a standing rule for the master to act with the advice of the greater part of his ship’s company and of the merchants, if any were on board.

The third clause provided, that if the ship’s crew should not, unless under compulsion, do everything in their power to save the vessel and cargo from shipwreck, they should forfeit their wages. If they saved a part of the cargo they were sent home, by raising money on the goods so saved.

The fourth article, relating to salvage, was very similar to that enacted by the Rhodian law, the allowance of the half, third, or tenth of the articles saved being regulated according to the depth of the water out of which they were raised. Any promises extorted by danger were either void or not too strictly interpreted.

The fifth article provided, that no sailors in port should leave the vessel without the master’s consent. The practice of the time required that the sailors should carefully look after everything that related to the preservation of the ship and goods; and if any damage accrued by their absence without licence, they were punished by a year’s imprisonment and kept on bread and water. If any accident happened so as to cause death, resulting from their absence, they were flogged. Special punishments were by law, as well as practice, inflicted for damaging the cargo; and very detailed instructions were given how certain goods were to be stowed and delivered. The laws in all cases against desertion were very severe. In some places the sailors were marked in the face with a red-hot iron, so that they might be recognised as long as they lived.

Provision was, however, made for such seamen as ran away by reason of ill-usage;[533] while in the case of a double engagement, the master first hiring a sailor was entitled to claim him, and any master knowingly engaging a hired sailor, was amerced in double the amount of wages. The sailor became entitled to his discharge on four grounds: in the event of his being made master or mate of another ship; if he married, in which case, however, he was obliged to refund what he had received; if he made any proviso in his articles for quitting the ship; and if the voyage was concluded, and the ship disarmed and unloaded, with her sails, tackle, and furniture taken away and secured. Provision was also made for compensation to the sailor, in the case of a master giving him his discharge at his pleasure only and without lawful cause. A master, however, could dismiss a mariner for incompetency, especially a pilot, and in such cases no wages were payable. Unqualified persons were in many cases punished for having accepted situations on board for which they were incompetent; and a sailor proved by two witnesses to have any infectious distemper, could be put on shore. The law quaintly laid down that a master might turn away any quarrelsome or thievish, factious fellow, but as to the latter, “he should have a little patience to see if he can be brought to reason.”

By article sixth, drunkenness, quarrelling, and fighting, were severally punishable, and mutinous mariners were compelled to refund their wages. Mariners wounded in the service of the ship were provided for. The seventh regulation stipulated that in the case of sickness seizing any of the crew while in the service of the ship, they were to be sent on shore with a ship’s boy to attend upon them. The eighth prescribed the formalities to be observed in throwing goods overboard to lighten the ship, which were much in the same way as had been laid down in the Rhodian laws. Similarly the proportional average, pound for pound, payable by each party so damnified, was framed upon the French law, livre à livre. The ninth article applied to the destruction of the masts and sails, in order to save the ship and cargo; and the rules to be followed were nearly the same for collecting the averages as those which are now adopted. The tenth article relates to damage arising from imperfect dunage, for which the master and mariners were liable to the merchant in the event of any injury, through neglect in this respect, to his merchandise.

Article eleventh refers to damage of goods, or loss of wines or other liquids, by the breaking in of the head of the cask, and generally to all damage arising from improper stowage. It would appear that persons, like the present Stevedores, who look to the stowage of the cargo, existed at a remote period, with the title of arrimeurs, or stowers. They were then paid by the merchant, and their business was “to dispose the cargo properly, stowing it closely, and arranging the several casks, bales, boxes, bundles, in such a manner as to balance both sides, fill up the vacant spaces, and manage everything to the best advantage.” There was also a class called Sacquiers, who were very ancient officers. Their business was to load and unload vessels with cargoes of salt, corn, and fish, to prevent the ship’s crew defrauding the merchant by false tale, or otherwise cheating him of his merchandise.

The twelfth article throws great light upon the existing manners of the sailors of those days. The master having hired his crew was invested with the duty of keeping peace. He was, in fact, their judge. If any of them gave the lie to another at a table, where there was wine and bread, he was fined four deniers; but the master himself offending in that way had to pay a double fine. If any sailor impudently contradicted the master, he was fined eight deniers; and if the master struck him, whether with the fist or the open hand, he was required to bear the stroke; but if he struck more than one blow the sailor might defend himself; whereas, if the sailor committed the first assault, he had to pay one hundred sous, or lose his hand. It would appear that the master might call the sailor opprobrious names, and in such case he was advised to submit, and hide himself in the forecastle out of his superior’s sight; but if the master followed, the sailor might stand upon his defence, for the master “ought not to pass into the forecastle after him.”

The thirteenth article[534] enacted, that, if a difference arose between the master and the seaman, the former ought to deny him his mess thrice[535] before he turned him out of the ship. If the latter offered satisfaction and was refused and turned out of the ship, he could follow the ship to her port of discharge and claim full wages. The master not taking any seaman in his stead, in such cases, rendered himself liable for any damage accruing. The Hanseatic laws required the master not to give the seamen any cause to mutiny; nor to provoke them by calling them names, nor wrong them, nor “keep anything from them that is theirs, but to use them well, and pay them honestly what is their due.”

The fourteenth and fifteenth articles relate to the regulations of mooring ships, and to injuries sustained through “striking against each other.” The law of damage is laid down at great length, and buoys, made of empty barrels, pieces of any description of light wood, baskets, or any articles which float buoyantly on the top of the water, are required to be used to prevent accidents and show where the anchors lie, when in port.

The sixteenth clause required the master to ask the crew, when a ship was ready to load, “Will you freight your share yourselves, or be allowed for it in proportion with the ship’s general freight?” and the sailors were there and then bound to answer, and make their election.[536] If they elected to take their risk, a curious practice resulted. In the event of taking on board a cask of water instead of a cask of wine, they might deal with their own stowage as of right; and, in the event of throwing cargo overboard, to lighten the ship, they had the privilege of refusing to throw over a cask of water in preference to a cask of wine. If the water, however, was thrown overboard, the mariner came in upon the general average; although, by the common law of England, a tun of water was never rated, pound by pound in value, with a tun of wine.

By the seventeenth clause the sailors of Brittany were restricted to one meal a day from the kitchen, while those of Normandy had two meals; and when the ship arrived in a wine country, the master had to provide them with wine.[537] The practice of serving out a certain allowance of food is very ancient, and to prevent jealousies, complaints, and quarrels on this account, the law prescribed a specified quantity to be supplied to each man exactly alike. When wine was provided, the mariner had one meal per day, but when water alone was served out, he had two meals.

The eighteenth article provided, that when a ship was unladen, the sailors could demand their freight; but from those of them having neither bed, chest, nor trunk on board, the master could retain a portion of their wages, till the vessel was brought back to her final port of destination. It was ruled that the wages were not due till the work had been entirely done, unless a special agreement subsisted to the contrary, for “freight was the mother of wages.”[538]

The rights of sailors hired per day, or week, or month, where freight was not procurable, were secured by the nineteenth article, which stipulated that if an engagement was broken off by war, pirates, or the command of his sovereign, the seaman was entitled to have a quarter part of his wages for the full term of his engagement.

The twentieth clause provided that, when in a foreign port, only two sailors from the ship might go on shore at a time, and take with them one meal of victuals, “as much as they can eat at once,” but no drink. They were bound to return to the ship in season, so as not to lose a tide, and they were held responsible for any damage resulting from their default.

The twenty-first clause related to detentions, and provided for the payment of demurrage. If a merchant, having freighted a ship, did not load her by the time appointed, he was bound to make compensation for such delay, and the sailors were entitled to a fourth part of the amount; the remainder being allotted to the master, he finding the crew in provisions. Formerly, eight days were allowed the merchant to unload, which afterwards was extended to fifteen. But that did not affect the payment of freight, which was required to be paid in eight days, whether the ship was discharged or not. The master could not detain the goods on board for freight, but when in a boat or lighter, he was entitled to stop them until he was satisfied.

The twenty-second clause relates to selling goods on board, to provide for the ship, in which the laws of bottomry were enforced.[539]

The twenty-third clause was a frightful instance, copied from the so-called Rhodian laws,[540] of barbarous legislation. It enacted that if a pilot, or “lockman,”[541] for such was the term applied to harbour pilots, undertook to carry a vessel into port, and the vessel miscarried through his ignorance, and he had no means to make good the damage, or otherwise render full satisfaction, he was condemned to lose his head.[542] While the twenty-fourth clause actually gave the master, or any of the mariners, or merchants on board, power to cut off the head of the offender without being bound in law to answer for it; they were only required to be very certain that the unlucky lockman who was hired at every river to guide the ship, in order to avoid rocks, shelves, shoals, and sand-banks, had not wherewith to make pecuniary satisfaction.

The twenty-fifth clause aimed at altering “the unreasonable and accursed custom” of lords of the coast, where a vessel was wrecked, claiming and seizing the third or fourth part of the ship, leaving only the remainder to the master, the merchant, and the mariners. “Therefore, all pilots who, in connivance with the lords on the coast,” or to ingratiate themselves with such nobles, ran the ship on shore, were doomed to a most rigorous and unmerciful death on “high gibbets near the place where these accursed pilots brought the ship to ruin, which said gibbets are to abide and remain to succeeding ages on that place, as a visible caution to other vessels that sail thereby.” The lords or others, who took away any of the goods, were also declared to be “accursed,” and were frequently punished as “robbers and thieves.” Indeed the twenty-sixth clause declared that, “If the lord of the place be so barbarous as not only to permit such inhuman people, but also to maintain and assist them in such villanies, so that he may have a share in such wrecks, the said lord shall be apprehended, and all his goods confiscated and sold, in order to make restitution to the parties, and himself be fastened to a post or stake in the midst of his own mansion-house, which being fired at the four corners, all shall be burned together; the walls thereof shall be demolished, the stones pulled down, and the place converted into a marketplace for the sale of hogs and swine only, to all posterity.”[543]

The frightful severity of this punishment was adopted to stop even greater barbarities inflicted upon wrecked mariners, in addition to the plundering of the ship and cargo. Neither the Gauls nor Britons hesitated to sacrifice strangers cast on their shores; and, unfortunately, the piracies of the Scandinavians and the Normans had the effect of perpetuating this sanguinary custom. Foreigners cast on shore were too frequently immediately despatched, and the right of plundering a wrecked ship extended alike to friend and foe. The execution of pirates, and such as were condemned for crimes committed on the high seas, and their being left to hang in chains by the water side, has survived in practice even to the present century.

Clause twenty-seven relates to the adjustment of losses by any accident resulting from an inferior outfit, and stipulates that when a vessel arrived at her port of discharge, she was to be hauled up on dry ground, the sails taken down, and everything properly stowed away; and that then the master ought to consider an increase of wages, “kenning by kenning.”[544]

The twenty-eighth, twenty-ninth, and thirtieth clauses adjust the respective shares of fishing vessels, when several were working in partnership, and provide that in the case of the loss of one vessel, the representatives of the parties who had perished could claim their quota of the fish caught as well as of the fishing instruments. They further relate to the salvage of shipwrecked vessels, in which the right of all shipwrecked persons to their goods is fully maintained; and refer to derelict ships and goods whose owners have been drowned, stipulating that such goods be kept a year, and if not claimed in that time be vested in the Church under certain conditions.

The thirty-first clause provides that any wreckers who plundered a ship, or who, “more barbarous, cruel, and inhuman than mad dogs, did sometimes, to gain their apparel, monies or goods, murder and destroy poor distressed seamen; in this case, the lord of the country ought to execute justice on such wretches, to punish corporally as well as pecuniarily, to plunge them in the sea till they be half dead, and then to have them drawn from the sea and stoned to death.”

The thirty-second to the thirty-sixth articles inclusive refer to the laws of jetsam and flotsam, and provide that goods thrown overboard to preserve the ship and cargo do not change their proprietorship. Whilst the thirty-seventh clause relates to strays of the sea, such as whales[545] and other oil-fish, stipulating that if a man on horseback could reach the stray with his lance it was deemed a royalty belonging to the lord. But if the fish was found farther off the shore, the lord had no right to it, though afterwards brought or driven on shore.

The five clauses which followed regulated the prevailing customs relating to sturgeon, salmon, turbot, the sea dragon, the sea barbel, and in general all fish fit for a king’s table; besides oil-fish such as whales, and porpoises, or of any fish of which oil could be made, and in which the lord had a title to a share. All other fish were declared to be the property of those who caught them in the sea, whether in deep or shallow waters; whilst the forty-third and forty-fourth clauses adjusted the title to goods which had become derelict. The forty-fifth provided that a vessel cutting her cables and putting to sea through stress of weather was entitled to recover their value. Buoys were directed to be placed over the anchors, and any person detaining them from the lawful owners was to be reputed as “a thief and a robber.”

The forty-sixth and forty-seventh articles applied to the timber of wrecks, when the crew were lost and had perished. The pieces of the ship were declared to belong to the owners, notwithstanding any custom to the contrary. “And any participators of the said wreck, whether bishops, prelates, or clerks, shall be deposed and deprived of their benefices respectively.” If they were laymen, they incurred the penalties previously recited.

Whatever opinion may be entertained of the barbarous character of the punishments enforced by these laws, it is undeniable that they are framed in a spirit of wisdom and justice towards the ship-owner. The lawless spirit of piracy, prevailing along the coasts in the time of Richard I., rendered it absolutely necessary, if a merchant navy was desirable, to protect the ships and the mariners, as well as the goods in them, by the stern authority of the civil law. The experience that Richard had acquired in sea affairs during his voyage to the Holy Land, made him sensible of the necessity of introducing into England the most salutary maritime regulations in force abroad. Accordingly the above code, of which we have furnished only a brief abstract, was established by him, or shortly after his death, to afford protection to those persons and interests, on which he saw clearly the commercial prosperity of England in great measure depended.

At a later period, the merchants of Wisby[546] framed their laws on the Rôles d’Oleron, which became, in fact, during the succeeding century and subsequently, the authoritative rule for deciding all maritime controversies not only in the Hanse Towns, but among all nations on the Baltic Sea. Further, it was declared by the forty-first article of Magna Charta, A.D. 1215, “that all merchants shall have safe conduct to go out of or come into England, and to stay there. To pass either by land or by water, and to buy and sell by the ancient and allowed customs without any civil tolls (an excessive tax on sales), except in time of war, or when there shall happen to be any nation at war with us.”

Lord Justice Coke, in his comments on this famous charter,[547] is of opinion that the merchants here mentioned were strangers, as few Englishmen at that time traded directly with foreign countries; some years elapsing before an English association began conducting, on its own account, a foreign trade with English wool, tin, lead, and leather. But during the reign of King John, the merchant navy found abundance of profitable employment, for the wars he engaged in required a large amount of tonnage. Moreover, the ship-owners and seamen are known to have supported him in his contentions with the nobles;[548] and William of Malmesbury speaks of the fame of London for its extensive commerce, and of the crowd of foreign merchants, especially Germans, who flocked there, and filled the Thames with their ships. Bristol, also, appears from the same authority to have been then a flourishing port for ships from Ireland, Norway, or other foreign parts. But the people, and especially the monks and nobles, complained loudly of the taxes levied for the hire of the merchant shipping, although a large portion of the great wealth amassed by the ecclesiastics of the period was undoubtedly derived from trade, and most likely from their private and personal investments in maritime pursuits.

When Henry III. ascended the throne, and the barons arrayed themselves in opposition to Louis of France, their former ally, so many actions by sea ensued that the maintenance of the navy became a necessity. An English fleet of forty galleys and other vessels attacked and defeated a French squadron of more than double its size; the English, on the authority of Matthew Paris,[549] attacking their opponents by “a dreadful discharge of arrows from the crossbow-men and archers,” rushing against them with their iron beaks, “and availing themselves of their position to windward by throwing pulverised quicklime into the French, whereby the men were blinded.” In this celebrated action, which some have called the commencement of England’s dominion of the sea, the vessels contributed by the Cinque Ports[550] greatly distinguished themselves, and obtained thereby further privileges. Thus they were commissioned “to annoy the subjects of France,”—in other words, to plunder, as they pleased, not merely the merchant vessels of that country, but “all they met of whatever nation, not sparing even their own acquaintances and relations,”[551]—a system of piracy which other Channel ports were not slow in adopting. Indeed, between the privateer and the pirate there was then so little distinction that, when Henry attempted to suppress these lawless acts, he found it necessary to hang indiscriminately about thirty of the most guilty.

But piracy, under the plea of retaliation, rapidly spread among the ships of other nations. The Normans, Scotch, Irish, and Welsh fitted out their marauders, pillaging not merely every vessel they could successfully cope with at sea, but also various towns along the coast. The whole Channel swarmed with pirates, and the spoils of rapine were too often preferred to the slower acquisitions of honest industry by those who thought themselves powerful enough to be robbers; a state of things naturally much increased during the long contest between Henry III. and his nobles. During this period, indeed, foreign commerce was almost annihilated. Wines, which used to sell for forty shillings, realized ten marks; wax rose from forty shillings to eight marks, and pepper from six pennies to three shillings a pound; while the scarcity of ordinary merchandise, especially of salt, iron, steel, and cloth, together with the stagnation in all exportable articles, owing to the interruption to navigation, was so great, that the industrial classes and many of the merchants were reduced to want and beggary. Still more stringent measures were therefore found necessary to sweep the seas of these pirates; for the English nation had become seriously alarmed. A great increase was consequently made in the fleet. A lord high admiral, and guardian of the sea and maritime ports, by the name of Topham, was for the first time appointed; and to him all ships of war were rendered responsible for their conduct.

But though so much trouble had arisen from pirates and other marauders, many changes of great importance in the development of the maritime commerce of England were inaugurated during the long, though generally feeble, reign of Henry III. Thus a treaty of friendship between England and Norway[552] formed one of his earliest acts, whereby the merchants and subjects of both kingdoms obtained full liberty of personal intercourse. The merchants of Cologne[553] were then also allowed to establish a hall or factory (known as their Guildhall), which soon became the general rendezvous in London of all German merchants, and the place of business where they disposed of their merchandise, and found safe and comfortable abodes; while, not long afterwards, they were allowed to trade at all the fairs throughout England.[554] French ships, laden with corn, wine, or provisions, then received permission to come into, or go out of, English ports unfettered by former restrictions. A quay was formed at Queenhithe, where vessels belonging to the Cinque Ports could discharge their cargoes; and here, also, the first fish market was established.

Liverpool then first became known as a place of maritime trade, although it continued to be ranked as a “village,” attached to the parish of Walton, till as late as 1699.[555] Brunswick was invited to have commercial dealings with England, and protection was afforded to its citizens. In Henry’s reign, too, there were built at Yarmouth, Winchelsea, and other ports, many vessels of a superior description to any that England had hitherto produced.[556] During the same period an association of English merchants obtained privileges from the Earl of Flanders (A.D. 1248), and established in the Netherlands depôts of English wool, lead, and tin. These adventurers were long known as the merchants of the staples of England. Previous to the reign of Henry III. all foreign merchants had been compelled to sell their goods on board their vessels; but in consideration of a payment of 100l. (cash) towards a supply of fresh water for the city of London, and of fifty marks to the lord mayor (annually), the merchants of Amiens, Nele, and Corbie, and of Normandy, were then allowed to land and store their cargoes.[557]

The formation of the Hanseatic Association was, however, the most important commercial event of Henry’s reign. Though its origin, like that of many other great communities, cannot be precisely ascertained, it seems probable that it arose out of an agreement, entered into in the year 1241 between the merchants of Hamburg and Lubeck, to establish a guard for the mutual protection of their merchandise against robbers; a precaution the more necessary, as men of the first rank were then but too ready to profess openly the trade of robbery on land, and of piracy on the seas.[558] As this powerful corporation, the most important in the commercial history of the middle ages, in time exercised great influence over the commerce of England, and of the whole of the north of Europe, we shall have frequent occasion to refer to its commercial operations.

It is to be regretted that no reliable information as to the number, size, or form of the English merchant vessels of this period has been preserved. We have, consequently, been obliged to seek information on this subject from the Corporate Seals of different towns which have fortunately been preserved, and are represented in the following drawings.