Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T01:12:49.576Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Fresh Light on Bate's Case

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

Pauline Croft
Pauline Croft
Affiliation:
Royal Holloway and Bedford New College, London
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

On the afternoon of 7 July 1610, two petitions of grievance, one temporal and one spiritual, were presented to James I. According to the French ambassador, he received them with ‘un assez mauvais visage’ and uncharacteristically few words, although later the king permitted himself the tart comment that the petition of temporal grievances was long enough to be his chamber tapestry. Although James exaggerated its size, politically it was a weighty document, for among its complaints it set out the Commons' view that the new impositions, already bringing in around £70,000 per annum, were illegal. ‘With all humility’, they presented ‘this most just and necessary petition unto your Majesty, that all impositions set without assent of parliament may be quite abolished and taken away.’ To answer the grievance, on 10 July James turned to his lord treasurer, Robert Cecil earl of Salisbury, for a full statement. The speech which he then gave formed the basis for all future defences of the royal power to impose on trade made by crown spokesmen up to 1640. Salisbury described how, early in 1607, his friend and predecessor, Lord Treasurer Dorset, had proposed new impositions to help fill the empty royal coffers. The privy council, after discussion, decided instead to raise money on loan; but in October 1607 renewed rebellion in Ireland rendered the situation more urgent, and by spring 1608 it was apparent that loans could not meet the king's necessities.

Type
Articles
Information
The Historical Journal , Volume 30 , Issue 3 , September 1987 , pp. 523 - 539
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1987

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Proceedings in parliament 1610, ed. Foster, E. R. (2 vols., New Haven, 1966), 1, 130–3Google Scholar; n, 253, 267, 273. Parliamentary debates in 1610, ed. Gardiner, S. R. (Camden Society, 1892, hereafter cited as Gardiner,1610 Debates), p. 123Google Scholar.

2 See the analysis of commodities in Dietz, F. C., English public finance 1558–1641 (London, 1964 edn), pp. 370–1Google Scholar. Hill, L. M., ‘Sir Julius Caesar's Journal of Salisbury's First Two Months and Twenty Days as Lord Treasurer, 1608’, Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research, XLV (1972), 319Google Scholar. For Ireland, Gardiner, S. R., A history of England from the accession of James l to the outbreak of the civil war, 1603–1642 (London, 1884), 1, 421Google Scholar; for the great loans of 1607, Ashton, Robert, ‘Deficit finance in the reign of James I’, Economic History Review, 2nd series, X (1957–8), 26Google Scholar.

3 Gardiner, , 1610 Debates, pp. 155–8Google Scholar: Foster, , Proceedings, 1, 130–3Google Scholar.

4 Gardiner, , 1610 Debates, p. 123Google Scholar; Notestein, Wallace, The house of commons 1604–1610 (New Haven, 1971). P. 390Google Scholar.

5 The standard but inadequate authorities are Epstein, M., The early history of the Levant Company (London, 1908)Google Scholar, and Wood, A. C., A history of the Levant company (London, 1935)Google Scholar. Neither discusses Bate's case, and both should be used warily, as should the incorrect account in Dietz, , English public finance 1558–1641, pp. 326, 364–5Google Scholar.

6 Skilliter, Susan, William Harborne and the trade with Turkey 1578–1582 (London, 1977)Google Scholar; Historical Manuscripts Commission Salisbury, V, 486; VI, 21; Public Record Office, (P.R.O.) SP 12/259/45.

7 P.R.O., SP 12/232/54: P.R.O., SP 14/15/4 (ii): H.M.C. Salisbury, XVI, 380: British Library Lansdowne MS, 112, 24, 26. Spain and Turkey arranged a number of truces during these years but no permanent peace: Braudel, Fernand, La méditerranée et le monde méditerranéan à l'époque de Phillippe II (Paris, 1966 edn), 11, 384–485Google Scholar.

8 H.M.C. Salisbury, V, 486; VI, 21, 215, 385.

9 In 1592 the company estimated £2,300 for presents, and in 1604 the ambassador and consuls cost £4,000 per year; in 1606 the company sent 11 trunks of presents to distribute at the Turkish court to mark the accession of James I. P.R.O., SP 12/241/13: P.R.O., SP 14/6/70; P.R.O., E. 190/13/5, fo. 120V. For the most famous present, Dallam's mechanical organ, see Early voyages and travels in the Levant: the diary of Thomas Dallam, ed. Bent, J. T., (Hakluyt Soc., LXXXVII, 1893)Google Scholar.

10 There was also a legal quibble about the precise words of the charter, and friction over the export of tin. P.R.O., SP 14/6/69; H.M.C. Salisbury, V, 166; X, 415; XVI, 380. Lewis, G. R., The stannaries (Harvard Economic Studies III, Cambridge, Mass., 1924), pp. 146–7Google Scholar. Carmarthen was a regular informant of Burghley's on customs matters; Willan, T. S., Studies in English foreign trade (Manchester, 1959), pp. 319–21Google Scholar.

11 Epstein, , Early history of the Levant company, pp. 21–3Google Scholar. Carmarthen calculated that the currant levy brought in an annual average of £4,848 6s. 8d., P.R.O., SP 12/272/127.

12 Calendar of State Papers Venetian (C.S.P. Ven.) 1603–1607, p. 132; P.R.O., SP 14/6/69; P.R.O., SP 14/4/46; P.R.O., SP 14/10/27.

13 P.R.O., SP 14/4/46; C.S.P. Ven. 1603–7, P. 146; PRO., SP 38 (Docquets), 7, 23 July 1604, 28 Oct. 1604.

14 C.S.P. Ven. 1603–7, PP. 146, 184; PRO., SP 14/10/28.

15 The Venetian ambassador reported in June 1604 that everyone was trying to sell their great ships, and in Nov. 1604 the former lord mayor of London, Sir Henry Billingsley, warned the privy council of the dangers of ‘the decay of great ships in a time of amity with all princes’. C.S.P. Ven. 1603–7,p. 161 H.M.C. Salisbury, xi, 102, P.R.O., SP 14/10/11. The increase of piracy ended hopes of using cheap unarmed shipping; Hebb, D. D., ‘The English government and the problem of piracy 1616–1642’ (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of London, 1985), pp. 25–39Google Scholar.

16 C.S.P. Ven. 1603–7, p. 198.

17 Cal. Dom, S.P.. 1591–4, p. 58, Acts of the Privy Council, XXI (1591), 136–7, 159Google Scholar; P.R.O., High Court of Admiralty (H.C.A.) 13/22, fos. 12O–122V, P.R.O., H.C.A. 13/30, fo. 73. P.R.O., SP 14/15/4 (ii); C.S.P. Ven. 1603–7, pp. 112–13; The Zurich tetters, ed. Robinson, H. (Parker Society, Cambridge, 1842), 1, 239Google Scholar; Andrews, K. R., Elizabethan privateering (Cambridge, 1964), pp. 111–12, 115, 217–18Google Scholar.

18 C.S.P. Ven. 1603–7, pp. 52, 64, 80.

19 C.S.P. Ven. 1603–7, PP. 64, 125, Baumer, F. L., ‘England, the Turk and the common corps of Christendom’, American Historical Review, L (1944–5), 33–8Google Scholar. The poems of James VI of Scotland, ed. Craigie, J. (2 vols., Edinburgh, 1955), 1, 197–257Google Scholar. B. L. Cotton Caligula E. X., fo. 359.

20 The suggested revival of the Levant monopoly on payment of an entrance fee of £50, made by a sub-committee of six members of the privy council, was a factor in precipitating the free trade debates. C.S.P. Ven. 1603–7, PP. 134, 146; Commons Journal, 1, 176, 220: P.R.O., SP 14/6/71.

21 P.R.O., SP 14/6/69; C.S.P. Ven. 1603–7, PP. 125. 184, 191–2, 217–18.

22 P.R.O., SP 14/6/69; SP 14/7/15; H.M.C. Salisbury, xvi, 380; C.S.P. Ven. 1603–7, PP. 192, 198, 217; The letters of John Chamberlain, ed. McClure, N. E. (American Philosophical Society, Philadelphia, 1939), 1, 204Google Scholar; SP 38 (Docquets), 7, 27 Oct. 1604. Hammersley was dismissed in 1607 but Salisbury's involvement with the currant imposition continued; H.M.C. Salisbury, xxiv, 41; xvin, 16, 305; xxi, 252.

23 C.S.P. Ven. 1603–7, PP. 184, 198, 217; H.M.C. Salisbury, xvi, 16–17.

24 P.R.O., SP 38 (Docquets), 7, 16 Apr. 1605: P.R.O., SP 14/15/4 (i, ii). Epstein, pp. 54–6 wrongly attributes the enclosure to Staper.

25 On Salisbury and freer trade, see Croft, P., ‘Preparations for a parliament, September 1605’, forthcoming in Parliamentary History. See also below p. 532Google Scholar.

26 Hatfield House, Cecil MSS 112/65, italics mine.

27 P.R.O., SP 14/10/31, endorsed by Salisbury, ‘Concerning ye currants.’

28 For the tobacco imposition, P.R.O., SP 14/28/143; Dietz, English Public Finance, p. 330Google Scholarand Hall, G. D. H., ‘Impositions and the courts 1554–1606’, Law Quarterly Review, LXIX (1953), 216–17Google Scholar. Alderman Eldred's arrears on the currant imposition were cancelled early in 1605, by royal command, in view of his contributions to the ambassador's upkeep at Constantinople; he was granted the farm of the pre-emption of tin in 1608, and by 1612 was a substantial royal creditor. Possibly influence helped to shield him from the consequences of his refusal to pay the tobacco levy. P.R.O., SP 14/10/29; SP 14/13/46; Cal. S.P. Dom. 1603–10, p. 469; P.R.O., SP 38 (Docquets), 7, 10 Nov. 1604, 22 May 1605; H.M.C. Salisbury, XXI, 329–30.

29 Dietz, , English public finance, pp. 119, 329–32Google Scholar; Newton, A. P., ‘The establishment of the great farm of the English customs, 1604’, Trans. Royal Hist. Soc., 4th series, L (1919)Google Scholar.

30 SP 14/10/23: H.M.C. Salisbury, XVII, 277; Hatfield House, Cecil MSS 112/138.

31 Croft, P., ‘Free trade and the house of commons 1605–1606’, Econ. Hist. Rev., 2nd ser., XXVIII, (1975)Google Scholar.

32 H.M.C. Salisbury, x, 214; The travels of John Sanderson in the Levant 1584–1602, ed. SirFoster, William (Hakluyt Society, 2nd ser., LXVII, 1931), pp. 137, 147Google Scholar; P.R.O. SP 14/10A/9. Bate's export trade can be traced in P.R.O., E.190/12/3 and E.190/13/5: he also re-exported Eastland goods. H.M.C. Salisbury, XII, 703–4, Foster, , Proceedings, II, 274Google Scholar. (Salisbury here gives the figure for the imposition plus the tonnage and poundage.) I have calculated London's import at around 18,500 cwt. annually from the loss of £2,000 per annum after the reduction of the imposition by 2s. 2d. (see below p. 537). If a significant part of the sum came from outport trade it would only underline Bate's prominence in London.

33 Guildhall Library London, Calandar and index to the court minute books of the Grocers company (typescript by W. LeHardy).

34 The Spanish Company, ed. Croft, P. (London Record Society, IX, 1973) pp. 1–101Google Scholar.

35 Corporation of London R.O., Repertory 27 fo. 116. For a fuller account see Croft, P., ‘Parliament, purveyance and the City of London 1589–1608’, Parliamentary History, IV (1985)Google Scholar.

36 P.R.O., SP 14/20/25.

37 P.R.O., SP 14/10A/26: Cal. S.P. Dom. 1601–3, p. 144; B. L. Harley 1878, fos. 108, 134.

38 C.S.P. Ven. 1603–7, P. 198; Stone, Lawrence, Family and fortune: studies in aristocratic finance in the 16th and 17th centuries (Oxford, 1973), pp. 24–7Google Scholar.

39 Hall, , ‘Impositions and the courts’, p. 204Google Scholar.

40 Hitchcock pointed to Wright, manager of the currant levy, client of Salisbury and M.P. for Queenborough, as responsible for Bate's imprisonment. Wright may well have informed Salisbury of the incident at the quayside. The parliamentary diary of Robert Bowyer 1606–1607, ed. Wilson, D. H. (Minneapolis, 1931), p. 119Google Scholar.

41 Beaven, A. B., The aldermen of the city of London (2 vols., London 1913)Google Scholar, under Thomas Cordall, John Eldred and Roger Owfield. Willan, , Studies in English foreign trade, pp. 193–6Google Scholar.

42 H.M.C. Salisbury, XVIII, 97, 125, 128–9; P.R.O., SP 14/41/15. The origin of the assumption that James had given specific permission is probably Baron Clark's rhetorical flourish in his final argument, ‘Such is the king's grace, that he had shewed his intent to be, that this matter shall be disputed and adjudged by us according to the ancient law and custom of the realm.’ A complete collection of state trials.… compiled by Howell, T. B. (London 1816), II, 382Google Scholar.

43 H.M.C. Salisbury, XVIII, 395–7.

44 Ibid. XVIII, 219; XIX, 284–5.

45 Hall, , ‘Impositions and the courts’, pp. 200, 203, 205Google Scholar. I hope to discuss the legal arguments put forward by Bate's lawyers, and the later debates in the Commons, elsewhere.

46 Bate appeared before the barons in May, during the course of the case, but it is not clear if he was still a prisoner. He was certainly free by December 1606, and was bankrupt before 1616. P.R.O., SP 14/32/2; P.R.O., SP 105/110 fos. 16v–21v; Corp. London R.O., Repertory 28, fo. 245; LeHardy, , Calendar to the court minute books of the Grocers company, IGoogle Scholar; 286; II, 112.

47 P.R.O., SP 105/12 (8 Aug., 1607). For the dislike of both James I and Salisbury for the company's export of guns and powder to the Turks, , H.M.C. Salisbury, XIX, 474Google Scholar; XX, 280. Ashton, Robert, The city and the court 1603–1643 (Cambridge, 1979), pp. 83–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

48 Millard, A. M. ‘The import trade of London 1600–1640’ (unpublished London Ph.D. thesis, 1956), p. 15Google Scholar. The Levant merchants estimated tin as a quarter of their export trade: H.M.C. Salisbury XXIV, 129. Foster, , Proceedings, II, 274Google Scholar.

49 Gardiner, , 1610 Debates, pp. 58, 116Google Scholar; Foster, , Proceedings, II, 185Google Scholar.

50 Foster, , Proceedings, II, 82, 224–5Google Scholar.

51 Foster, , Proceedings, I, 130; II, 102, 109, 274–5Google Scholar; Foster, E. R., The house of lords 1603–1649(Chapel Hill, 1983), pp. 32Google Scholar, 79, 180. For the criticism that Salisbury ‘undertook three great offices, and in a general distraction left them all ill executed’, see SirCope, Walter, ‘An apology for the late lord treasurer’, Collectanea Curiosa, ed. Gutch, J. (Oxford, 1781), I, 122Google Scholar.

52 See particularly Sharpe, Kevin, ‘Parliamentary history 1603–1629: in or out of perspective? Section v, The crisis of counsel?’, in Faction and parliament, ed. Sharpe, K. (Oxford, 1978), pp. 37–42Google Scholar. Wormald, Jenny, ‘James VI and I: two kings or one?’, History, LXVIII (1983)Google Scholar. Hirst, Derek, ‘Revisionism revised: the place of principle’, Past and Present, XCII (1981), 80–1Google Scholar. Commons Debates in 1628, eds. Johnson, Robert C., Keeler, Mary Frear, Cole, Maija Jannson and Bidwell, William C. (New Haven, 1977), II, 63Google Scholar.

53 Proceedings of the Short Parliament of 1640, eds. Cope, Esther S. and Coates, Willson H. (Camden Society, 4th series, XIX, London, 1977), p. 257Google Scholar.