'^^^d.c^^-SZtZ^ V KD 137i!p94" ""'"^^'''y Library ^'',?i.,.M,?,!;,.,e3,'ent.s..of monopoly / 3 1924 022 174 696 QJornrll IGaui ^rl^nnl IGibrary The original of tiiis book is in tine Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924022174696 HARVARD ECONOMIC STUDIES Volume I: The English Patents of Monopoly, by William H. Price. 8vo, $1.50, net. Volume II: The Lodging-House Problem in Boston, by Albert B. Wolfe. 8vo, $1.50, net. Volume III: The Stannaries; A study of the English Tin Miner, by George R. L^wis. Svo, $1.50, net. Volume IV: Railroad Reorganization, by Stuait Daggett. Svo, $2.00, net. Volume V: Wool-Growing and the Tariff, by Chester W. Wright. Svo, $2.00, net. Volume VI : Public Ownership of Telephones on the Continent of Europe, by Arthur N. Holcombe. Svo, $2.00, net. Volume VII : The History of the British Post Office, by J. C. Hemmeon. Svo, $2.00, net. Volume VIII : The Cotton Manufacturing In- dustry of the United States, by M. T. Copeland. Svo, $2.00, net. Volume IX : The History of the Grain Trade m France, by Abbott Payson Usher. In Press. HARVARD UNIVERSITY Cambridge, Mass., U.S.A. HARVARD ECONOMIC STUDIES PUBLISHED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS VOL. I THE ENGLISH PATENTS OF MONOPOLY BY WILLIAM HYDE ^ICE, Ph.D. INSTRUCTOR IN POLITICAL ECONOMY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN AND SOMETIME HENRY LEE MEMORIAL FELLOW IN HARVARD UNIVERSITY AWARDED THE DAVID A. WELLS PRIZE FOR THE YEAR 1905-06, AND PUBLISHED FROM THE INCOME OF THE DAVID A. WELLS FUND CAMBRIDGE HARVARD UNIVERSITY PRESS LONDON: HUMPHREY MILFORD Oxford University Press 1913 /3' COPYRIGHT, igo6 BY THE PEESmENT AND FELLOWS OP HASVARD COLLEGE 4 ,-;'\V :>•'_'•:-,.;• ■A Qw'\y':"' TO MY MOTHER PREFACE During the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, England ex- perienced a series of attempts to establish monopoUes by royal letters-patent, both for external and internal undertakings. The external or commercial monopolies were conceded to groups of merchants who exported to foreign countries the staples and manu- factures of England. These great commercial companies, notably the Merchant Adventurers and the East India Company, embodying conspicuously as they did so much of national ambition and energy, have naturally attracted the attention of investigators, while the in- ternal monopolies, less prominent but no less interesting, have been hitherto comparatively neglected. The avowed motive of both the foreign and domestic monopoheswas that of organizing trade and in- dustry under a national regulation which should protect and stimulate these enterprises. The system of internal monopoly, however, included a greater variety of objects and a greater comphcationof motives than did the group of external monopolies. It included, for example, a control of the press and of postal communication, primarily for poUtical purposes; it comprised also Ucenses for contraventions of penal statutes, inspired by fiscal motives as well as the necessity of relief from cramping regulation. More important, from an eco- nomic point of view, than either of these were the undertakings in which it was hoped that the estabUshment of monopoly, under royal sanction, might be the means of encouraging new or weak domestic industries. The value of a systematic investigation of the latter, and the justification of this monograph, lies not only in the hght derived from one experiment with industrial privileges, but in the special significance of this phase of English economic history. With some allowance for overlapping, it maybe said that in England "monopoly" formed the coimecting Hnk between "mercantilism" and "protection." The system of exclusive privilege supplemented, if it did not entirely supplant, the earlier policy which prohibited the export of specie and of raw materials and enacted statutes of via PREFACE " employment ; " and it led the way to the poUcy of protective customs duties. The materials for this study were collected in the Harvard College and Law School Libraries at home, in the Bodleian Library at Oxford, and at London in the PubUc Record Office, the British Museum, the Privy Council Office, the Patent Office, the Guildhall, Lincoln's Inn Library and the Library of the Society of Antiquaries. Acknowledgments are due to the authorities and officials of these in- stitutions for unfailing courtesy and timely assistance. I regret that the kind interest of many friends in England can be recorded here only in a general expression of grateful appreciation. But I owe especial thanks to Mr. E. W. Hulme for guidance in tracing the history of inventions from 1560 to 1660, and to Mrs. Lilian Tomn Knowles and Mr. George Unwin for helpful suggestions from their own studies in the economic history of this period. The two latter, dififering somewhat as to the interpretation of the industrial poli- cies of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, aided my effort to do impartial justice to the motives of the advocates of "ordered trade" as well as to those of the advocates of "freedom." My study of this subject has been conducted under the guidance of Professor Edwin F. Gay of Harvard University, and I am in- debted to him for sympathetic assistance from first to last. I do not dare to think what my results would have been without his stimulus and encouragement, without his hints as to sources of in- formation, and without his suggestions as to the broader historical relations of my subject. A service that I could ill have spared was his conscientiously thorough criticism of my work, for which I can- not be too gratefxil. Cambridge, Mass., August, igo6. CONTENTS Part I. Political History. I. To the Case of Monopolies 3 II. From the Case of Monopolies to the Statute of Monopolies .... 25 III. From the Statute of Monopolies to the Long Parliament .... 35 Part II. Industrial History. IV. The Mineral Companies . 49 V. The Mechanical Inventions 62 VI. The Glass Patents 67 VII. The Royal Alum Works 82 VIII. The Cloth-Finishing Project 102 IX. The Iron Industry 107 X. The Salt Monopolies 112 XI. The Soap Corporations . . ... 119 XII. Conclusion . . . . . 129 Part III. Appendices. Bibliography. Index. Appendices. A. Statute of Monopolies, 21 Jac. I, cap. 3, 1624 135 B. Items from "Notes of Queen Elizabeth's Reign, by the Lord Treasurer Burghley" 142 C. A Note of Monopolies, 1603 145 D. Robert Cecil's List of Patents, 1601 148 E. List of Patents granted between the Parliaments of 1597 and 1601 . . 150 F. Another List 151 G. "Note or Catalogue showed, only altered in some places, for order's sake" 152 H. Bacon's Speech, November 20, 1601 154 J. Elizabeth's Proclamation concerning Monopolies, November 28, i6oi . 156 K. The "Golden Speech" of Queen Elizabeth, to her last Parliament, November 30, 1601 160 L. Proclamation of James I, suspending Monopolies, May 7, 1603 . . . 163 M. Declaration of the Judges concerning the Delegation of the Execution of Penal Statutes, November 8, 1604 164 N. Letter of the Privy Council to the Town of Middleburg, September 8, 1614 165 O. Proclamation of James I, touching Grievances, July 10, 1622 . . . 166 P. Proclamation of James I, touching Grievances, February 14, 1623 . . 169 Q. Order in Council concerning Patents and Commissions, March 31, 1639 . 171 R. Proclamation of Charles I, revoking certain Patents and Commissions, April 9, 1639 . 173 X CONTENTS S. Sturtevant's Melallica, May 22, 1 612 i?^ T. Patent to Lord Dudley for Iron, 1621 '93 U. Patent to Dudley e/ a/, for Iron, 1638 i97' W. Patent to Jones and Palmer for Soap, 1623 207 Y. Patent to Mansell for Glass, 1624 214 Z. Extension of the Patent to Mansell for Glass, 1634 226 Bibliography. Manuscript Sources .... .... 245 Contemporary Printed Literature • 246 Parliamentary Proceedings . . . . ■ • 248 Legal Reports ... . . . 248 Secondary Authorities . . . . 248 Index 251 ABBREVIATIONS Lansd Lansdowne manuscripts. Titus Cotton manuscripts, Titus. Vesp Cotton manuscripts, Vespasian. Harl Harleian manuscripts. Egerton Egerton manuscripts. Sloane Sloane manuscripts. B. M. Add British Museum Additional manuscripts. C. R Council Registers. C. J , Journals of the House of Commons. L. J Journals of the House of Lords. Pari. Hist Parliamentary History. S. P. D State Papers, Domestic. S. P. D. E State Papers, Domestic, Elizabeth. S. P. D. J. I State Papers, Domestic, James I. S. P. D. Add State Papers, Domestic, Addenda. S. P. D. C. I State Papers, Domestic, Charles I. Docq Signet Office Docquet Books. S. P. Docq State Paper Docquets. Pat Patent Rolls. Exch. Dep. by Com Depositions taken by Commission, King's Remem- brancer of the Exchequer. Rem Remembrancia. Rep Repertories of the Aldermen, London. Hist. MSS. Com Historical Manuscripts Commission Reports. Salisb. Pap Calendar of Salisbury Papers, Hatfield House. H. of L. MSS Calendar of manuscripts of the House of Lords. B. M. Proc. Coll British Museum Collection of Proclamations. Soc. Ant. Proc. Coll Society of Antiquaries Collection of Proclamations. R. O. Proc. Coll Record Office Collection of Proclamations. Diet. Nat. Biog Dictionary of National Biography. L. Q. R Law Quarterly Review. Secondary works and articles cited by the names of their authois. See Bibliography, pages 245-250. PART I POLITICAL HISTORY THE ENGLISH PATENTS OF MONOPOLY PART I. — POLITICAL HISTORY CHAPTER I TO THE CASE OF MONOPOLIES Numerous isolated attempts to grant patents of monopoly as a form of industrial encouragement were made on the continent be- fore any similar action was taken in England.^ In 1467 a monopoly was granted for the manufacture and sale of paper in Berne and its jurisdictions.^ Two years later Johann von Speyer received an exclusive privilege of practising the trade of printing in Venice for five years.' It is from Venice that our first instance of glass- patents, as well as of printing rights, comes. In 1507, the Council of Ten granted an exclusive privilege for twenty years for the intro- duction of a secret process of mirror-making.* It was also by patent that this industry was established in France in 1551, when a ten-year monopoly was granted for the manufacture of mirror- 1 In the absence of any careful investigation of the subject, for countries other than England, use must be made of occasional and perhaps not always trustworthy allusions in various secondary works. ' Kohler, ffandbuch des deutschen Patentrechts, Mannheim, 1900, p. 21, quoting Zeitschrift fiir schweizerisches Recht, N. F. xv, pp. 6 fl. ' Klostermann, Das Patentgesetz fiir das deutsche Reich, Berlin, 1877, pp. 15, 16, quoting Waechter, Das Verlagsrecht, Stuttgart, 1857, Th. i, p. 8 : "Ut per annos quinque proxime futuros nemo omnino sit qui velit, possit, valeat, audeatve exercere dictam artem imprimendorum librorum in hac inclyta civitate Venetiarum et dis- trictu suo nisi ipse Mag. Johannes." * Nesbit, Glass, London, 1878, p. 90. Nesbit gives no authority for this state- ment, but his book shows familiarity with original Italian documents. It has been suggested that the German glass-house, mentioned in 1507 by these Muranese, may have been the forerunner of one specially exempted in 1 599 from a Flemish grant for Venice glass. Houdoy, Verreries d. lafafon de Venise : La fabrication flamande d'apris des documents inldits. Paris, 1873. 4 ENGLISH PATENTS OF MONOPOLY glass "according to the Venetian art." ' A curious and interesting example of an early patent is given by Cardan. He describes a machine, recently invented, which is so useful to millers, mon- asteries, convents, and nobles that the inventor devotes himself entirely to supplying their demands for the machine, for which he has an exclusive privilege from the emperor.^ There were, however, few places in Europe where the economic conditions favored the extensive development of a patent system in the sixteenth century. Adequate guaranty of monopoly over o vnde industrial area is an essential prerequisite of success for such a system, and hence Italy, Germany, and the Netherlands offered no congenial field. Isolated industrial centres within these coun- tries, whether autonomous or not, could not protect an inventor against infringement beyond their own borders, so that the ad- vantages of an extended market were not sufficiently attractive to encourage the divulging of a secret of manufacture. There were better opportunities in France and England. The industrial pro- gress of France was superior to that of England, but the poHtical, social, and economic integration of the country had not gone as far. The French crown enjoyed more wealth and magnificence, but less ' Renouard, Traitl des brevets convention, Paris, 1844, pp. 79, 80 : " Des lettres- patents du 13 Juin 1 551 octroyent a Theseus Mutio, de Bologne, faculte, permission et privilege de seul, durant I'espace de dix ans, faire ou faire faire dans le royaume les verres, miroirs, canons et autres verreries a la fa9on de Venise, et iceux exposer ou faire exposer en vente dans le royaume, et ailleurs ou bon lui semblera ; a peine, centre les contrevenants de confiscation et d' amende arbitraire." ^ Cardanus, De Subtilitate, Nuremberg, 1550, p. 61 : " Nam nunc cum pistores omnes ob utilitatem habeant : ille vero privilegium conf ectus sit a Caesare ne quis habere possit praeter ejus consensum, vitam ex hac agit industria, et adeo brevi tempore sibi domum aedificavit. Neque enim pistores soli, sed collegia sacerdotum, et virginum Deo sacrarum, et nobiles quicunque familiam magnam alunt, ob egre- giam utilitatem ne dicam necessitatem habent, plures etiam alii quos non tam utUi- tas quam ipsa rei admiratio incitavit, facere curavere." Cardan then goes on to give an explanation of the machine and adds a drawing of it. On Cardan's place in the development of experimental physics, see Hallam, Literature of Europe, i, pp. 400- 401, and the article in Larousse, Dictionnaire universel du xix' siicle. Cardan's allusion to this patent is noted by Fournier, Le Vieux-Neuf, 2d ed. 1877, i, p. 391, n. I, where, referring to the early protection of inventors in Germany, he states : " La propriete industrielle avait, au xvi° siicle, ^te reglee en AUemagne, au moyen de privileges qu'on donnait, non pas comme en France ainsi qu'on le verra plus loin, a de grands seigneurs, done les inventeurs n'etaient plus que les associes ou plutdt les proteges, mais qui ^taient deUvres aux inventeurs eux-m6mes." TO THE CASE OF MONOPOLIES 5 real national power than did the Tudors. Not only did the economic organization in France foster local exclusiveness, but the efforts of the central power were calculated to strengthen rather than to supersede gild regulation in its expanded form of national monopoly. Then, too, the financial resources of the French monarchy tempted the state into a more active intervention in industry than was pos- sible to the poorer English government, so that monopohes were less hkely to be granted to private individuals. A generous use of public money proved hardly more advantageous in French industry than in French colonial enterprise.' Apparently the earhest system- atic use of patents in France dates from the closing years of the sixteenth century, and this may well have been in imitation of the EngHsh patent system, already well developed.^ While continental governments were making sporadic attempts to estabhsh new industries by means of industrial privilege, England was moving in the same direction through a more or less inde- pendent course of development. Before the middle of the sixteenth century the industrial patents granted in England were in effect but promises of protection to foreign workmen introducing new arts, especially those connected with the clothing trades. The best known of these were issued in the reign of Edward III.^ In the following century other cases apparently indicate the contin- uance of the poUcy.^ The practice of the early Tudor monarchs, in encouraging the introduction of new arts, was to attract skilled artisans into their own service. In this way German armorers, Ital- ian shipwrights and glass-makers, and French iron-founders were induced to establish new industries in England with the hope of royal patronage.' Down to this time the industrial privileges conferred by the ' Compare Fagniez, £,conomie socials de France, chap, ii, with Parkman, Old RSgitne in Canada, ch. xx. ^ Fagniez, pp. 119 and 154 ff. ; Renouard, pp. 80 ff. ; Levasseur, .&"«/. class, ouvr. 2d ed. 1901, vol. ii, pp. 172 ff. 5 Cal. Pat. Rolls, May i, 1327, Hist. MSS. Com. xiv, pt. viii, p. 7; Pat. 1331, 5 Edw. Ill, pt. I, m. 25, reprinted in Rymer (patent to John Kempe) ; Pat. 1336, lo Edw. Ill ; Pat. 1368, 42 Edw. Ill, pt. i. * Pat. 1440, 18 Hen. VI, pt. 18, m. 27 (patent to John Schiedame and company); Rymer, xi, 317. ' Hulme, article in L. Q. R. April, 1896; Page, Denizations, p. xlii. 6 ENGLISH PATENTS OF MONOPOLY crown, far from being exclusive, had the contrary effect. They tended to break down special privileges. Instances of grants of monopoly must be sought, not in the royal patents, but in acts of Parliament confirming and protecting local advantages that were being threat- ened. The decentraUzation of industry under the domestic system had led to organized attempts to support the former local monopoly of the towns. The borough craftsmen sometimes induced the country artisans to join their organizations, but more commonly they excluded this outside competition.' Popular feeling, expressed not only in literature ^ but also in statutes,^ supported the protec- tion of town monopoly and regarded with disfavor the increasing migration to the countryside. In this policy the Tudor sovereigns, despite their occasional attempts to introduce skilled artisans, were in full agreement with Lords and Commons. The forces of economic progress, however, were working against the local inertia as ex- pressed in parliamentary policy. Industry was outgrowing the jurisdiction of the crafts, and was becoming national. This called for a regulation that was national, or none at all. The release of industry from the fetters of local custom opened the way for a diversification as well as an expansion of industry. Elizabeth's accession introduced a vigorous and on the whole a popular national administration. Ehzabeth, with the help of her ministers, had the shrewdness to grasp the opportunity. Instead of attempting to bolster up a local supervision which the spread of the domestic system had rendered inadequate, the government was encouraged by the new economic and pohtical conditions in the effort to establish a system of national regulation, and to stimulate new industries by increasing the extent and effectiveness of the former policy of protective intervention. Thus the policy of grant- ing patents was obviously suggested by the course of development ' See tJnwin, Industrial Organization, p. 86, citing stat. zo Hen. VI, c. lo (Nor- wich, 1442), Hist. lyiSS. Com. Bury St. Edmunds, p. 133, Shrewsbury, p. 11. ' Hales, Discourse of the Commonweal, Miss Lamond's ed. p. 131. ' 14& 15 Hen. VIII, c. i, country weavers not to deal with foreigners. 14 & 25 Hen. VIII, c. 3, protection of Norwich artisans against neighboring competition. 21 Hen. VIII, c. 12, protection of Bridport artisans against neighboring competition. 25 Hen. VIII, u. 18, protection of Worcester artisans agsdnst neighboring competi- tion. 5 & 6 Edw. VI, c. 24, protection of Norwich artisans against neighboring com- petition. I Mary, c. 7, seven-year apprenticeship in the country only. 2 & 3 Ph. & M. c. 7, the weavers' act. 5 Eliz. c. 4, statute of apprentices. TO THE CASE OF MONOPOLIES 7 in internal economic conditions. The period covered by the reigns of EHzabeth, James I, and Charles I was not the beginning of industrial monopoly. It was important chiefly because of its na- tional and systematic character, whereas hitherto monopoly had been much more a local phenomenon. The system of monopolies under royal patronage was in fact a somewhat reactionary attempt to reconstitute monopolies along national hnes. The development of the patent system in England was not accidental; many factors conspired to make this country the birthplace of the system. A nation of a fair degree of economic unity, with the narrower gild regulations and local exclusiveness already dechning, with a sov- ereign who in practice was well-nigh absolute, who surrounded herself with ministers possessing at least the best practical economic ideas that the time afforded, and who was interested in the industrial development of the country but without command of resources sufficient to involve the state in public enterprise on its own account, — such were the chief conditions favorable to the development of a systematic patent pohcy in England earher than in any other country. While the system as settled policy was not borrowed, the initial suggestion apparently came from abroad. The earhest recorded ' application for an exclusive patent for introducing a new art into England bears the date of 1558 and was presented jointly by an Englishman and an Italian.' The petition was granted in 1562 as a reward of "diligent travail" and to "give encouragement to others." ^ Meanwhile two other patents had been granted for in- ventions of foreign origin.^ Before any one of these was con- ceded, another Italian, Giacopo Acontio, in a petition for a patent prefaced his application with the suggestion that "nothing is more honest than that those who by searching have found out things use- ful to the public should have some fruit of their rights and labors, as meanwhile they abandon all other modes of gain, are at much expense in experiments, and often sustain much loss." He then explained that he had invented certain furnaces and "wheel- ' S. P. D. E. 1558, i, 56. 2 Pat. 4 Eliz. pt. 10 (May 26, 1562), to George Cobham, for a dredging-machine. 3 Pat. 3 Eliz. pt. 6 (August 8, 1561), for white soap. Pat. 4 Eliz. pt. 13, (January 3, 1562), for saltpeter. 8 ENGLISH PATENTS OF MONOPOLY machines" which others would copy without remunerating him unless he were protected.^ During the first ten years of the patent policy (1561-70), twelve patents were granted for various chemical products and processes, and six for mechanical inventions. Some of the inventions and inventors were native and some foreign, for "invention" was held to cover first importation as well as first contrivance. The chemical patents included such products as soap, saltpeter, alum, sulphur, oil, salt, glass, and cloth- and leather-dressing. The mechanical patents covered dredging, draining, and grinding machines, furnaces and ovens. During this decade also, numerous mining privileges were conferred upon two groups of prospectors.^ In the course of the next decade, seven mechanical inventions were patented, chiefly for water-raising and drainage, and three for chemical inventions, earthenware, glass, and sulphur. There was also a patent for sail- cloth and one for playing-cards. Originally, the patents had been given for ten years, but by this time twenty, twenty-one, and thirty years had become more ordinary terms, the practice of reissuing had commenced, and patents were no longer wholly confined to new arts. In the course of the third decade (1581-90), more obvious abuses crept in. No less than three new patents were issued for the manufacture of salt. The third, to Thomas Wilkes,' continued in force by means of extensions until 1601, when it was abolished by proclamation in response to the bitter outcry against the extortions of the patentee. Patents for salt, starch, train-oil, and paper were issued to men who did not claim to be the first introducers. In this decade, also, the saltpeter licenses became particularly irritating and proved a constant source of popular resentment, for the deputies used their authority to dig in houses, cellars, and barns.' Several ' S. P. D. Add. December, 1559, ix, 39. The editor of the calendar adds that "Acontius had an annuity of £y> granted February 27, 1560, letters of natural- ization, October 8, 1561, and a license to take up workmen to amend Plumstead Marshes, June 24, 1563, but not the patent here solicited." This is a mistake, as the patent was received September 7, 1565. See also Hulme, L. Q. R. April, 1896, p. 148. ^ See the list of patents given by Mr. E. W. Hulme in L. Q. R. April, 1896. s Pat. September i, 1585. * The grievance from the saltpeter-men antedated the accession of Elizabeth. See Clode, Early History of the Merchant Taylors^ Company, i, p. 87 (1545-6.) TO THE CASE OF MONOPOLIES 9 mechanical inventions received patents, which caused little trouble. The ten years from 15 91 witnessed the renewal of patents for starch, salt, train-oil, paper, glass, and playing-cards, and a new patent for vinegar, in addition to a few unimportant privileges for genuine inventions.^ In each of the cases named established industries were attacked. Meanwhile, the system of licenses was being given an unprecedented extension. Those which attracted most attention were for the sealing of leather, the alnage of the new draperies, the survey of cordage, digging for saltpeter, the super- vision of taverns and of gaming-houses; patents for remission of penalties under the acts for sowing of flax and hemp, for the tanning of leather, and against the use of gig-mills; and finally a miscel- laneous group of licenses for the exportation of commodities con- trary to statute.^ The export Ucenses occupy a position somewhat anomalous. They were admitted to be monopolies and were decried as such, — fairly so, perhaps, for they constituted exclusive privileges, — but their purpose and results were in opposition to trade restrictions. They were granted for the most part in contravention or suspension of statutes prohibiting certain exports. Hence they may very well have constituted a political grievance. It is needless to say that in current opinion they also formed a grave economic grievance. The prohibitory acts of Parliament were frankly class-legislation, and very serious results would have followed the rigid enforcement of some of the most extreme of them. This was the case particularly with a great deal of legislation, experimental in character, which was passed at one session at the demand of one interest, only to be modified or repealed at the next or a later session, at the complaint of another interest. Sweeping restrictions were made in certain trades, the rigid enforcement of which either experience or urgent representations demonstrated would be injurious. In such cases the crown simply exercised the wide discretionary power which it claimed, and authorized certain exceptions to the law which would give partial or complete relief. The special licenses for the export of grain, for instance, were in addition to the licenses automatically ' See list of patents, 1570-1600, by Mr. Hulme in L. Q. R. January, 1900. ^ See Appendices B, C, and J. lO ENGLISH PATENTS OF MONOPOLY provided according to prices in the locality of export.^ Like the hcenses for the export of ordnance, they were often justified by the desire to help needy allies upon the continent. In the case of ordnance, however, popular alarm was frequently aroused by the supposed laxity of the crown in yielding to such suits without due guaranties that English guns would not thus find their way to Eng- land's enemies.^ While the prohibitions of the export of grain were in the interest of consumers, those upon the export of calf-skins, pelts, wool, and "white" broadcloths were for the protection of the native manufacturers. But such restrictions, rigidly enforced, would have caused serious difficulties, for the native industries were not in a position fully to utihze the advantages thus conferred. They were not able to work up all the raw material placed at their dis- posal, and even if they had materially increased their output they would have been unable to find a market for their products, owing to the fact that, without protection, they had already enjoyed a market for as much of their output as their crude workmanship could satisfactorily supply.^ The prohibitions upon export of raw materials were intended to force upon foreigners and EngHsh alike products which were completely manufactured in England. But as most of these prohibitions proved to be premature, there was the prospect of discouraging and even ruining a large part of the interests devoted to the production of raw materials. This would in the long run have reacted upon English craftsmen, reducing them to as small a supply and as high a price for their materials as before the prohibitions. To afford relief, licenses were granted either by way of exception or as privileges of long or indefinite duration. The prohibitions upon the export of calf-skins, for example, would have ruined a very important industry and a well-established branch of foreign trade. To avoid these consequences, numerous licenses ' E. g., Cotton, Vesp. C. xiv, no. .238 (fol. 574) ; Pat. 3 Eliz. pt. i (January 24, 1561), and see warrant for licenses, July, 1592, in Appendix B, and also, in tlie same Appendix, the item under date of November, 1592 ; and Appendix H. 2 The acts against export of " gun-metal," 33 Hen. VIII & 2 Edw. VI, were sup- plemented by proclamation to cover ordnance of iron, but licenses and illicit export excited the House of Commons, and a bill was there passed against the transpor- tation of iron-ordnance. D'Ewes, pp. 670 ff. (December, 1601), Oldys, Life of Raleigh, 1829, pp. 345 ff. ' See below, chapter on the Cloth Project. TO THE CASE OF MONOPOLIES 1 1 were granted, each for a term of years, authorizing a limited num- ber to be shipped out of the country/ Likewise licenses were granted for the exportation of Norfolk wools, notwithstanding a temporary prohibition.^ The most important of all the export licenses were those for the "whites" or unfinished broadcloths. Dyeing and finishing of fine cloths had not been successfully estab- lished in England, and legislation ' attempted to encourage the industry by drastic means. But this was continuously and almost completely nulhfied by licenses to the Merchant Adventurers and by smaller grants of the same sort to others. When, in the middle of James's reign, these cloth licenses were called in and an attempt was made to enforce the law, the immediate derangement of trade which resulted proved the necessity of the licenses.* Some of the export licenses which were used effectually to swell the lists of monopoUes presented for parliamentary discussion in 1601 can hardly have been serious grievances. Such were, for instance, the licenses for the gathering and exporting of " Usts, shreds, and horns " and of "ashes and old shoes." ''' When the fear of "regrators" or jealousy of foreign countries led parliaments to include refuse and discarded wearing apparel among the articles which must not leave the country, the crown can hardly be blamed for facihtating the efforts of those who sought to engage in the export of these com- modities. Similarly, the jealousy which inspired the prohibition of transportation from Ireland, of agricultural and grazing products and a few simple manufactures such as linen yarns, was rightly checked by licenses." It might have been better, from a purely economic view, if the restrictions had not been enforced at all, but, politically considered, special exceptions were probably preferable. Taken as a whole, the presumption is that these Hcenses did more ' Of these, the most important were those in the interest of the merchants of Chester. Consult Harl. 2104, nos. 4, 9, 23, 26. 2 See Appendix B. An internal license also remedied in a measure the inconven- ience resulting from the statute 5 Edw. VI, c. 7, directed against wool-brokers or middlemen who were supposed to enhance the price of wools, but whose services were found indispensable to the northern drapers. See S. P. D. January, 1615, Ixxx, 13-16; Lansd. 48, 66; 21, 65; B. M. Add. 34324. fols. (new) 8, 26. 3 33 Hen. VIII, u. 19; 8 Eliz. c. 6. ' See below, chapter on the Cloth-finishing Project. 5 See Appendices B to G. ° See Appendices B and C. 12 ENGLISH PATENTS OF MONOPOLY good than harm, notwithstanding the evils that must have resulted from the unequal way in which the troublesome statutes were avoided. The case of the dispensing patents is analogous to that of the Ucenses for export. The grants of dispensation from penal laws authorized patentees either' to issue pardons upon receipt of com- position, to grant dispensations from the penalties of statutes upon receiving a fee, or to "take the benefit of forfeiture." The differ- ences in the three forms were hardly more than verbal. Historically all grew out of the custom of providing in penal statutes for a division of the offender's fine between the crown and the informer, and the dispensing patents regularized the growing practice of collusion between offenders and informers. It vsdll be seen that these transactions virtually enabled offenders to bargain, either periodically or once for all, for the right to break the law. Immunity might even be purchased without an individual bargain, for a patentee would gain most by establishing a fixed price so low that large numbers would be led to purchase exemption. This form of patent was nominally abandoned after the reign of Elizabeth, the withdrawal being due to the declaration of the judges who gave advice against them in 1604 when consulted by the Privy Council.' Yet after this "the taking the benefit of obsolete and impossible laws" was frequently heard among the grievances, for the old practice was continued in the commissions issued under James and Charles for compounding with transgressors in the name of the king himself, thus conforming with the words of the declaration of 1604.^ Very many of the acts of Pariiament which were thus intrusted to the discretionary execution of a patentee were as ill- advised as the prohibitions upon export. Thus Parliament had yielded to the popular opposition against the gig-mill, which was regarded as inimical to labor by substituting machinery for the antiquated practice of treading in the fulUng of cloth, and all use of the machinery was prohibited.' Proclamations subsequently ' See Appendix M. 2 See c. g., the following commissions for inclosures : Pat. 5 Jac. I, pt. 18 (Feb- ruary 16, 1608) ; 6 Jac. I, pt. 37 (May 20, 1608). Pat. 15 Jac. I, pt. 5 (February 28, 1618). Pat. II Car. I, pt. 5 (May 8, 1635) ; ii Car. I, pt. 9 (November 13, 1635). 3 5 & 6 Edw. VI, i;. ■^. TO THE CASE OF MONOPOLIES 1 3 permitted their use for half the process only. Later, the crown interfered by issuing a patent for the benefit of forfeiture under the act." Ostensibly this was a measure of enforcement, but a con- sideration of the customary manner in which such deputations were enforced would lead to the presumption that the patentees accepted compositions or anticipatory fines which practically authorized the evasion of the law. In 1630, Charles attempted to reform "abuses" in the Shrewsbury district.^ The appointment of a commissioner ' in this district was a part of the general principle of "thorough" which characterized the king's whole economic pohcy. The attempt of the commissioner to interfere with the use of gig-mills was then regarded as an innovation which shows that the act had not been regularly enforced, and this is further con- firmed by the serious inconveniences which followed directly upon the new policy.^ Another unfortunate statute was designed to reform the abuses in the tanning of leather. All that subsequently appears points uniformly to the fact that the act was in every way injurious to the trade. Regulations for tanning were minutely pre- scribed by a body of men no one of whom seems to have possessed the slightest knowledge of the tanner's art. Very likely the condi- tions required could not have been successfully obeyed by a single tanner. However this may be, it is certain that no attempt could have been more misguided than that of prescribing a uniform practice, irrespective of leather, bark, and water, all of which varied in their chemical quahties in different parts of the country.^ Differ- ent methods of preparation, moreover, were needed in accordance with the purposes for which the leather was intended. Hence of fifteen clauses in the statute only six, it was said,° could possibly be observed. If the law had been rigidly enforced, its repeal at an early session would almost surely have resulted. But the theory upon which the crown then acted prevented it from shifting the responsibility upon Parhament and required that the burden should remain with the executive. Discretionary powers were exercised ' Pat. 36 Eliz. pt. II (April 17, 1594), to Roger Bineon and William Bennett. 2 S. P. D. October 29, 1630. 3 Procl. April 16, 1633, S. P. D. ccxv, 56. * S. P. D. August I, 1633. ■ ^ Fleetwood to Burghley, Lansd, 20, no. 4. « Lansd. 5, no. 58. 14 ENGLISH PATENTS OF MONOPOLY and the act remained unrepealed. Though only partially enforced, it was the foundation of subsequent regulation under Sir Edward Dyer, who was authorized to pardon and dispense with the pen- alties for violation of the statute.' Legitimate as were- the grounds upon which the dispensing patents were based, it yet was true of them that their employment was most unfortunate, for they offered unusual temptations to those who dealt in them. Dyer and his deputies gained an evil reputation for extortion practised under cover of the patent.^ No single motive is sufficient to explain all the other numer- ous and diversified grants. The desire to encourage invention, the advancement of political power by means of the regulation of industry, financial considerations, and the desire to reward her servants and favorites, must all be considered as influencing the monopoly policy of the queen. The encouragement of invention continued to be regarded as one of the chief pubhc concerns, although as the years went on this consideration had diminishing weight in patent policy. The advancement of pohtical power was sought more particularly in the hcensing patents. The extension of this system was a natural though not necessarily desirable result of the effort to nationalize the country. This end was best to be attained by unity of economic interests. At the time it was thought that uniformity was equally necessary, and supervision of industry in the direction of uniformity was part of the program of central- ization. Hence the crown was predisposed in favor of any project which promised a uniform regulation. But inasmuch as patents were usually granted as a result of petition on the part of some one who had a selfish interest in the grant, the desire for national regu- lation was not the immediate incentive in the conferring of the privileges, and the most that can safely be said is that a petitioner was more sure of success if he could show that central control of industry would incidentally result from his privilege. The granting of patents was, as a rule, prompted by the pecuniary interest either of the crown or of the patentee. Thus in the case of the export and dispensing Hcenses already considered, a very im- portant, if not the chief motive, was the financial advantage both to the crown and the favored grantees, who divided their profits with ' See Appendix C. 2 Lansd. 24, no. 70. TO THE CASE OF MONOPOLIES 1$ the sovereign by the payment of rents. That the fiscal motive ani- mated the administration can be further shown by an examination of the circumstances attending the granting of the starch monopoly. The courtiers who successively enjoyed it were in debt to the queen, and she apparently hoped to reimburse herself by helping them at the expense of her subjects. A petition growing out of the failure of an arrangement between the first and the second patentee renders it plain that the patent was issued and reissued as a means of hquidating the debts of two courtiers whose financial circumstances were desperate. The queen joined in the general scramble of cred- itors to realize upon inadequate assets, intervening to prevent the performance of a contract which bears the indication of having been especially negotiated in order to make the contracting parties preferred creditors instead of the queen. The crown's financial in- terest alone explains the extraordinary vigor with which the Council prosecuted offenders against this particular monopoly.' Neverthe- ' Young received the patent April 15, 1588 (Pat. 30 Eliz. pt. 9). It was trans- ferred to Pakington, July 6, 1594 (Pat. 36 Eliz. pt. 13), and reissued May 20, 1598 (Pat. 40 Eliz. pt. 16). By the terms of Pakington's patent, he was to reserve ;£'34S a year and the residual interest remained with Young. Both patentees left the ad- justment to their respective creditors, Anton and Ellis, who arranged that Young should accept a fixed sum of ;if 500 per annum, instead of the residual interest. Ellis secured an agreement that his own claims against Young should first be satis- fied out of Young's interest, but the queen interfered and required the payment to herself of the whole income, in part payment of a debt of £,^oao due to her. Hist. MSS. Com. Cal. Salisb. Pap. -j, pp. 532, 533. The profits of this monopoly were estimated as low as ;^40o (Lansd. 73, fols. 32-3), and as high as £TZi,o. B. M. Add. 36767, fol. II, and 12497, fol. 313. The lower estimate is probably the more correct. Under both patentees, the starch monopoly was the occasion of an unusually large number of summonses before the Council Table, where offenders were often simply enjoined " to give their attendance " upon the Council or some member of it until formally dismissed. See C. R. May 22, July 23, 29, November 19, 1592, Febru- ary 8, November i, 1595, January 17, 28, February 4, 1596. But prosecutions were perhaps pursued to punishment with more vigor under Pakington's patent. See C . R. February 8, September 6, October 6, November i, 1595, January 11, 17, Febru- ary 4, 6, May i, 19, 1596. The consequences of the jealous enforcement of this monopoly and the accompanying abuses were as serious as were possible for such a commodity. The trade, originally in the hands of the Company of Grocers, was practically taken from them and they were obliged to submit entirely to the terms of the patentees in order to be allowed to resume it. Wholly unreasonable demands were constantly imposed upon them, with the alternative of forfeiture. The pa- tentees and their deputies took advantage of their opportunity to practice all sorts of extortion under color of their privilege, and accepted bribes for lenient treatment. 1 6 ENGLISH PATENTS OF MONOPOLY less, with the exception of the patents in contravention of statutes, Elizabeth did not derive much direct profit from the administration of the monopolies. With few exceptions, the patents called for merely nominal rents, so that even if these rents were never de- faulted, as they certainly often were,^ the revenue would not have been great. Allowing for the expenses incurred by the constant necessity of executive intervention to protect patentees, there is reason to doubt whether the rents covered the outlay. Those rents that were higher than the usual merely nominal sum were designed to compensate for the loss of customs revenue by the decline or prohibition of importation. The evil features and abuses of the monopolies owe their origin rather to the importunity of influential and unscrupulous suitors than to the fiscal interests of the crown. The very possibility of securing exclusive privileges was an invitation to those at court to join in the race for favors. The courtiers were not attracted by the patents for new inventions, leaving those for the poor and often chimerical inventors, but they sought to secure the more valuable licensing patents or else lucrative new monopolies in old industries. The frugal queen, though loath to part with her treasure, was willing to bestow valuable patents upon her pensioners, favorites, Strype's Stow's Survey, ii, 177; B. M. Add. 36767, fol. n; S. P. D. October, 1601, cclxxxii, 29 ; Salisb. Pap. v, pp. 275 ; Rep. July 22, 1592. The monopoly had as important industrial as commercial consequences, with the result that the manufac- ture was carried on uneconomically. Exclusive of the illicit production, not reached by the monopoly, the interference of the patentees confined production to a few undertakings. There were only four plants licensed for London and vicinity. B. M. Add. 36767, fol. 1 1. It was naturally to the interest of the patentees to counte- nance only a few undertakings, for their control would then be easier, but the inter- ests of the trade were injured. The prevailing type of business organization, under the small master, was more suitable for the industry, as was proved by the fact that, after the monopoly was removed, many small concerns sprang up without increas- ing the aggregate production. Titus B, v, 315. The ostensible object of the patents was to prevent the consumption of wheat in the manufacture of starch, but evidence is not wanting that such starch as was made under the supervision of the patentees was made with good wheaten flour (B. M. Add. 36767, fol. 11), and those acquainted with the manufacture in this period regarded the possibility of employing bran alone as a popular delusion which was fostered by those who had no intention of foregoing the use of flour. Lansd. 152, fol. 130 ; Titus B, v, 315. ' The government often had to accept compositions for the full rents. See C. R. May 22, 1592, June 28, 1579, December 23, 1578; Salisb. Pap. v, pp. 525. TO THE CASE OF MONOPOLIES 1 7 personal servants, petty officers and clerks.' It is evident that the grants to the servants of the queen's household, and to clerks, were conferred in lieu of salaries. Salaries might have been more accept- able and surely would have been better for the nation, but there was no civil Ust and Elizabeth had other uses for her crown revenues and for the grants which she chose to ask from Parliament. What was explained concerning Wilkes's patent for salt is typical: "The said grant was given unto him by her Majesty in some reward of his service, and is a principal part of his maintenance." ^ In the hands of the corrupt courtiers ' the system of monopolies, designed originally to foster new arts, became degraded into a system of plunder. Projects of all sorts found advocates and, for a considerable time at least, there was no adequate machinery for investigation into the expediency of suits. The great majority of courtiers holding these privileges acted in the boldest spirit of exploitation. Having no acquaintance with the arts over which they were set, the only mission that they recognized was that of helping themselves in a mercenary and extortionate manner. Notwithstanding the mutiplicity of patents and the abuses con- nected with many of them, they long escaped serious opposition. This is to be attributed to the cautious manner in which the policy was pursued throughout the reign, and to the traditional deference to the queen's will. The royal caution was displayed in the anxiety to avoid any open defiance of the common law. Although there seems to have been some attempts to forbid law suits,' this cannot ' The starch monopoly, already noted, is an instance of an established industry deliberately handed over to courtiers. Other examples are the patents for playing- cards to the " pensioners " Bowes and Bedingfield, Pat. i8 Eliz. pt. i (July 28, 1576) ; that for vinegar to Richard Drake, " groom of the privy chamber," Pat. 36 Eliz. pt. 1 1 (March 23,1 584) ; and that to Thomas Wilkes for salt. See below, chapter on the Salt Monopolies. Of royal favorites, Sir Walter Raleigh was perhaps the most liberally supplied. See Naunton, Fragmenta Regalia, 1 641, pp. 31, 32 : " Though he gained much at court, yet he took it not out of the Exchequer or merely out of the queen's purse, but by his virit and the help of the prerogative, for the queen was never profuse in the delivery out of her treasure but paid many and most of her servants part in money and the rest in grace which, as the case stood, was taken for good payment." 2 C. R.June 5, 1590. ' Consult Hall, Society in the Elizabethan Age, for a picture of the corruption of the time. * Such at least is the inference from the clauses in the patents for reference 1 8 ENGLISH PATENTS OF MONOPOLY safely be constraed as a deliberate policy. Viewed in the most unfavorable light, it can be regarded only as a vague and uncon- scious encroachment upon the Uberties of the subjects, in an en- tirely novel pohcy with respect to which legal precedents were meagre and of altogether doubtful apphcation. What is apparently the best explanation of the arbitrary protection of patentees is more favorable. There is good ground for accepting the claim that the protection against the law was a measure of temporary expedi- ency, although this excuse was probably unduly pressed. To the end of her reign, Elizabeth continued to display at least occasional anxiety that her patents should exist only in conformity with the law, as well as a general disposition to administer the patents with as httle injury as consistently might be.^ Originally, decisions as to grants and their provisions rested immediately with the queen and her trusted minister Burghley; but the multipHcity of suits for monopohes, and the growing appreciation of the disorders that might result from injudicious grants, led in time to a greater care in considering them, and the original practice was modified by referring petitions to the law officers of the crown for a preliminary examination as to their legaUty.^ The result was that many apph- cations were never allowed to be presented for the consideration of the queen. A significant letter to Robert Cecil complains, "And now it pleaseth you to say that monopohes are hardly obtained." ' In the latter part of the reign, ministerial responsibihty also began to serve as a check. A disappointed inventor wrote in 1596: "I hear by report there is a worthy gentleman . . . that hath now the keeping of the great seal,* and these suits cannot pass but by of disputes to the Privy Council; from the queen's promise in 1597 to submit the patents to common law trial (D'Ewes, pp. 547) ; and from her proclamation of 1601 (Appendix J), in which she authorized any one to test the legality of the monopolies without fear of her prerogative. That the prerogative was something to dread is shown by the fact that, in the Case of Monopolies, Fuller was able to cite only three patent cases from the entire reign, and only two of these were common law cases ; the third was a Privy Coun- cil case. Noy, pp. 183. ' C. R. December 23, 1578, March 22, 1586, June 20, 1596, January 11, 1597. 2 See Hulme, L. Q. R. January, 1900. » Hist. MSS. Com. Cal. Salisb. Pap. iv, pp. 615,616 (September 19, 1594). * The new lord keeper was Egerton, who became Baron EUesmere at the acces- sion of James I. TO THE CASE OF MONOPOLIES 1 9 his privity; and they say ... he hath ever been a great enemy to all these paltry concealments and monopolies; and they further say of him that to beguile him with goodly shows is very difficult, but to corrupt him with gifts is impossible." ^ But it was more especially the peculiar position of the queen as a Tudor autocrat which enabled her so long to pursue her monopoly pohcy without interruption. Foreign dangers and relief from serious internal strife guaranteed to the Tudors a loyalty so unquestioning that there was no effective check upon royal encroachments so long as it was apparent that the monarchs had at heart the general good; and of this there was constant proof, especially in the reign of Elizabeth. Chivalry and personal devotion also supported the queen, and she repaid this support with sympathetic tact. If she yielded sometimes to petty interests, her ambitions were wholly national. She understood national prejudices and she knew with whom political influence rested. Accordingly, she took the only wise course in rehgious matters, respected the common law, hberalized trade, and alhed herself with the gentry and commercial classes. The power and skill of the Tudors were manifest in Parliament. The membership of the House of Commons was doubled. Eliza- beth added sixty-two new borough members. All these were hkely to be strongly attached to the crown as long as commercial and industrial interests were cared for. The older rural constituencies were very largely represented by lawyers resident in the metropolis. Both economic and legal interests demanded extensive and effective national government, and the result was a natural alliance between the lawyers and traders. As long as these two interests were satisfied the crown could count upon a Parliament free from opposition. It was only after the Stuarts had openly defied both these interests that Parliament began to be divided into consciously opposing parties. When the struggle came, the contest was one between the prerogative and the common law, and on the side of the law were ranged a majority of the gentry and the traders, representing the grovnng middle class. The legal and economic conflicts were in- extricably intertwined. The Tudors, however, did not depend entirely upon good- will; they had other resources. The initiative in legislation rested almost ' Harington, Metamorphosis of Ajax, 1596. 20 ENGLISH PATENTS OF MONOPOLY exclusively with the crown. Parliaments existed to vote supplies and to give sanction to royal policies. The privy councillors nearly all had seats in one or other of the houses, and the deference paid to them enabled them to influence legislation very decidedly. Thus under ordinary circumstances it was comparatively easy to silence complaints and the queen did not hesitate to use her advantage. In 1571, for instance, the Commons were directed to "meddle with no matters of state but such as should be propounded unto them." When, nevertheless, one of the members ventured to complain of licenses and monopolies, he was summoned before the Council and sharply reprimanded. At the close of the session, the " audacity and presumption" of such behavior were severely censured.^ In 1593, the crown renewed its contention ^ that the privilege of the House was in saying "aye and no" and not "to speak every man what he listeth or what cometh into his brain to utter." The question of monopohes was again raised in the Parliament of 1597. A bill was offered in the House of Commons "touching sundry enormities growing by patents of privilege and monopohes," which was re- ferred to a committee for investigation. This time the complaints were more graciously heard, and redress of the grievance was promised. At the close of the session the House directed that the queen should be thanked for her "most gracious care and favor in repressing of sundry inconveniences practised by monopohes and patents of privilege." And the lord keeper replied ' to the speaker, — "touching the monopohes, her Majesty hoped that her dutiful and loving subjects would not take away her preroga- tive, which is the chiefest flower of her garden and the principal and head pearl of her crown and diadem; but that they will rather leave that to her disposition, and as her Majesty hath proceeded to trial of them already, so she promiseth to continue that they shall all be examined to abide the trial and true touchstone of the law." The final protest in Ehzabeth's reign came in 1601.* This famous outburst of popular feeling is memorable as being one of the few cases in which the queen was unable to stem the tide, though here, • D'Ewes, pp. 141, 142, 151, 159, 175. 2 Townshend, p. 37. ' November 10, 1597, December 14, 1597. D'Ewes, pp. 554 ff. and 547. * The last Parliament of Elizabeth opened October 27, 1601. TO THE CASE OF MONOPOLIES 21 as in the few other instances of this sort,' she yielded with dignity. It was not until a generous subsidy had been granted that a bill was offered^ which was described as "an exposition of the common law touching those kinds of patents commonly called monopolies." In the course of the debate which followed it was shown that the deputies of the patentees were especially obnoxious by reason of their high-handed and irresponsible conduct.^ Francis Bacon was one of those who opposed the agitation, and he attempted to defend the monopoHes as being both reasonable and legal. He insisted that in considering the bill for defining the rights of the crown with respect to patents, the Commons were encroaching upon the prerogative. Other speakers followed, showing the distress that was caused by the patents for salt and other commodities, and the annoyance of less important monopolies. Laurence Hide, the author of the bill, in reply to Bacon defended the proposed measure, citing a precedent from the time of Edward III. Respecting the queen's prerogative Hide said, "As I think it no derogation to the omnipotency of God to say He can do ill, so I think it no derogation to the person or majesty of the queen to say so." At the close of Hide's speech the debate turned largely upon the question whether the House should proceed by petition or by bill. The conservative members who advocated the former course were overborne by those who showed the futility of further petition, for it was pointed out that in 1597 petition had only resulted in a promise which had not been performed. Sir Walter Raleigh, who held several mono- poUes, in the course of the debate defended himself and his monopo- lies, but offered to assent to their cancellation if it were desired by the House. Bacon again argued against the bill, pointing out its incon- sistency in making an exception in favor of corporations.* Fleming, the soHcitor-general, attempted an explanation of the neglect of the crown to make the reforms promised in 1597, but in answer to his plea, a list ^ of patents which had been granted in the interval since ^ For two other instances, see Prothero, Statutes and Constitutional Documents, 1 558-1625, pp. xcv and 118-120. 2 November 18, 1601. 3 Townshend, pp. 224, 230. * See Appendix H. 5 See Appendix E. This list, though inaccurate, was not challenged, and has since been frequently quoted by those who have discussed the monopolies. 22 ENGLISH PATENTS OF MONOPOLY the last Parliament was exhibited. Secretary Cecil objected to the citing of precedents from the time of Edward III, "when the king was afraid of the subject." He rebuked the speaker for entertaining bills directed against the prerogative, contrary to the injunction of the queen, "for her Majesty's ears be open to all our grievances and her hand stretched out to every man's petition." Finally he urged discrimination between good and bad monopolies. He was, however, unable to calm the agitation, and complained that the dis- cussion was conducted in so unreasonable a mood that none could get a hearing in favor of the patents. "This," he said, "is more fit for a grammar-school than a parliament." At length the queen, perceiving that Cecil and Bacon were unable to calm the storm of opposition, and would very probably be unable to prevent the passage of the bill, adopted a thoroughly characteristic course, and sending for the speaker, she instructed him to inform the House that she herself proposed to reform the abuses of the monopohes. ' The Commons were content to entrust to her the redress of grievances. Upon the reconcihation she at once summoned them to listen to a speech, which was a masterpiece of eloquence and dignity, and in which she avowed that her whole ambition as sovereign was that she might be an instrument for her subjects' welfare.^ This speech and the proclamation which she had issued against the monopohes, according to her promise, were her last great pubhc acts.^ The proclamation * summarily revoked the more obnoxious of the patents, and those that remained were left to the common law free from any clause of restraint, thus entrusting to the courts of law the responsibihty of deciding what grants should be allowed to stand. Within a few months the Queen's Bench was given an oppor- tunity of laying down the law. As soon as the proclamation had guaranteed immunity to those who sought to test the vaHdity of the queen's patents, a London Haberdasher infringed the patent held by 1 Townshend, pp. 232-249. 2 November 30, 1601. See Appendix K, The "Golden Speech" of Queen Elizabeth. ' " The principal good this Parliament has wrought is that patents for monopolies are suspended, but this is done by proclamation and not statute, because her Ma- jesty's mercy and grace should be the more superabundant. You could not believe what contentment the Commons receive at it." S. P. D. December 12, 160 r. * November 28, i6oi. See Appendix J. TO THE CASE OF MONOPOLIES 23 Edward Darcy for the sole importing, making, and selling of play- ing-cards. Darcy instituted an action at law which has become famous as the leading Case of Monopolies.' The case was argued upon three occasions and the litigation was thus carried on till Easter term, 1603,^ when the decision was handed down, just after the queen's death. In the course of these proceedings, the chief arguments on behalf of Darcy, the plaintiff, were made by Coke and Fleming, the law-officers of the crown. On behalf of the defendant, the chief argument was made by Fuller. For the prosecution it was argued that the grant was good because playing-cards were not legitimate merchandise, but merely a "vanity." It belonged to the queen, by virtue of her prerogative, to take away the abuse. The queen, it was claimed, had jurisdiction over recreation in the social interest, and she might at discretion either suppress entirely or tolerate in part any vain amusements.' It was admitted that a patent ought not to change the law, nor should it be contrary to justice or common right; it ought not to impose upon the subject "an unprofitable charge, . . . nor do wrong to the inheritance, liberty, or trade of the subject; " but, inasmuch as the trade of card- making was involved with "the vices of deception by servants of their masters, and the misemployment of time which ought to be applied to other industries and not to such enormities, the queen might prohibit it by patent." ^ To arguments such as these it was not difficult to find an answer. Fuller contended that it was not malum in se for the subject to play at cards, but wrong only to those to whom it was expressly prohibited by statute. He noted the fact that the plaintiff, in his pleadings, had represented that he had imported 4000 gross of cards "for the necessary use of the subject." He also showed that this patent was rather a Hcense than a re- straint upon card-playing. He argued that all patents concerning the crown and subjects were hmited to the exposition and allowance of the judges of the law, and that the judges stood "indifferent" between the king and subject. Cases were cited proving that the judges were not bound to construe grants in favor of the crown. If the queen could not take i2d. from a subject, even to support a war, without act of Parliament, much less could she take away » Darcy v. Allen. ^ Moore, pp. 671,672, 675. 3 Coke, xi, pp. 84 ff. * Moore, p. 674 24 ENGLISH PATENTS OF MONOPOLY any moderate recreation from her subjects, without the same authority; "for commonwealths were not made for kings, but kings for commonwealths." ^ The one exception to the rule against monopoly which Fuller admitted has become a legal classic. Here was clearly stated, for the first time, the principle which has since been the accepted criterion of the legitimacy of a patent: "Now therefore, I will show you how the judges have heretofore allowed of monopoly-patents, — which is that when any man by his own charge and industry, or by his own wit or invention doth bring any new trade into the realm, or any engine tending to the furtherance of a trade that never was used before; and that for the good of the realm; — that in such cases the king may grant to him a monopoly- patent for some reasonable time, until the subjects may learn the same, in consideration of the good that he doth bring by his in- vention to the commonwealth, otherwise not." ^ The decision in the case confirmed Fuller's contention. It was held that all trades that "prevented idleness" were useful to the commonwealth; that there were three inseparable incidents to a monopoly: the price would be raised, the commodity would deteriorate, and former artisans would be impoverished, — hence this monopoly was pre- judicial to traders and others. It was declared that the queen had been "deceived" in her grant and that the patent was a dan- gerous innovation, contrary to common law.^ The common law had thus proved an adequate remedy against monopolies. Though legislation subsequently became necessary, this was not to supply a deficiency in the law, but to reassert the law which was being neglected, evaded, and defied. ' Noy, pp. 174-185. 2 Noy, p. 182. 3 Coke, xi, pp. 84 ff. CHAPTER II FROM THE CASE OF MONOPOLIES TO THE STATUTE OF MONOPOLIES, 1603-1624 During the first few years of his reign, James I was little troubled by parliamentary opposition to patents of monopoly. Shortly after his accession, he published a proclamation ^ condemning the monopohes and ordering their suspension until the Privy Council could consider them. In March, 1604, James opened his first Parliament and ended his speech '' with a protestation or an apology for his conduct in the matter of gifts, honors, and rewards. In form it was an excuse for his lack of liberality, but his plea of pru- dence and economy must have appealed strongly to the Commons, as it was an indication of an intention to govern without lavish bounty to favorites. With pledges of this sort, the House of Com- mons was content and turned to subjects of greater urgency, such as privileges of its own members, and the foreign trading com- panies. Internal monopolies were neglected, owing to the confidence that the difiiculties with respect to them would soon be adjusted.' Sincere efforts were at first made to reform the abuses. An in- tricate mechanism of investigation was devised, which, if it had been properly used, might have prevented most of the grants which were inexpedient or legally doubtful. An important constituent of the investigating machinery was the permanent body known as the Commissioners for Suits, which was instituted soon after the king's accession.* Of the commissioners. Sir Francis Bacon and Sir ' May 7, 1603. See Appendix L. 2 Pari. Hist, i, pp. 977 ff. 3 Pari. Hist, i, pp. 996 ff. ; C. J. i, pp. 218 ff. * " An open placard concerning the causes of suitors to his .Majesty and their Lordships wherein it is ordered that Tuesdays in the afternoon shall be appointed for that purpose and that six of the Lords at the least shall meet to consider and give answer to suitors that shall prefer petitions themselves [as well] as those that shall be referred unto them from his Majesty; provided that they shall entertain no suit whereby any cause depending in a court of justice may be interrupted, 26 ENGLISH PATENTS OF MONOPOLY Julius Caesar were the most prominent. They were on nearly every reference, whether as members of the commission or not; and as the public careers of both practically extended over the whole reign, their connection with the patents was long and intimate. Bacon, moreover, as attorney-general and subsequently as lord keeper, came into contact with every patent that was issued in the latter part of the reign. Other referees very frequently employed were the Earl of Salisbury, secretary of state and later lord treasurer, the Earl of Dorset, Salisbury's predecessor as lord treasurer, the lord chief justices of King's Bench and Common Pleas, the barons of the Exchequer, the lord admiral, the lord mayor and the re- corder of London, the lord privy seal, and the lord chancellor. The attorney- and solicitor-generals were also often named on the committees of reference, and had the subsequent duty of drafting or seahng the patents.* It was not long, however, before the true character of the king was revealed, and it was seen how ready he was to yield to the importunities of suitors, notwithstanding the elaborate machinery which he had interposed between them and himself. As the grants began to multiply, the opposition in Parhament became more pronounced, and in the second session (January to May, 1606) the patents of monopoly became one of the most important subjects handled by the Committee of Grievances, — a new political engine destined to give the early Stuarts much trouble and to make the monopolies one of its most important concerns.^ At the opening of the third session (November, 1606), the king attempted to satisfy the Commons by an elaborate reply ^ to a petition which had been submitted at the end of the second session. He insisted upon retaining a few of the more obnoxious patents, as a matter of right, unless upon extraordinary occasion the same be referred unto them from his Maj esty ; and for this purpose a commission under the great seal was granted." B. M. Add. 11402, May 30, 1603. In 1611 the commission included the following names: Herbert, Caesar, Parry, Bacon, More, and Cope. Rem. June 27, 161 1. ' For referees, consult Lansd. 266 for the years 1603-15, and for subsequent years, the Council Registers. 2 Among the patents considered in this session were those for the licensing of wines, the preemption of tin, the importation of logwood, and the searching and sealing of the new draperies. See C. J. April 9, 1606. ' See Petition of Grievances, S. P. D. July 7, 1610. See also C. J. 1, pp. 316-318. TO THE STATUTE OF MONOPOLIES 27 but promised considerate execution. The patent which was then regarded as the most serious grievance, the grant to the Duke of Lennox for the seahng of new draperies, was defended, but as- surance was given that it would be subjected to the judgment of the courts. On the seventh of July, 1610, shortly before the close of the fourth session, a new petition of grievances was drawn up, couched in respectful language but plainly manifesting disappoint- ment at the unsatisfactory way in which the promises had been carried out. The petition represented that the grievances formerly complained of were not only not redressed but were exceedingly aggravated. Particular remonstrance was made against the unwill- ingness of the crown to fulfil its pledge that certain patents should be judged in the courts. The strongest protest was directed against the patent for the alnage of the new draperies. It was urged that since the second session the abuses of the deputies of Lennox, in- stead of being reformed, had increased without restraint or punish- ment. "Disorders in the execution are so far from being reformed that they multiply every day, to the great grievance and oppression of your Majesty's subjects, and those of the poorer sort, who living hardly upon these manufactures are by the forementioned dis- orders greatly hindered and some utterly undone, as hath ap- peared in the particulars presented unto us." ^ Three days later the ' S. P. D. July 7, 1610. The original patent had been granted by Elizabeth, in 1594, to George Delves and William Fitzwilliams. Their supervision included such fabrics as worsteds, bays, says, fustians, and frisadoes. A subsidy was to be imposed upon them which the alnagers were to collect for the crown, while they were to exact a fee for their seal- ing. Defective draperies were to be destroyed, and a penalty was imposed for ex- posing cloths for sale without seal. One of the new king's Scottish favorites, the Duke of Lennox, " procured " the surrender of this patent and a new one was issued to him, covering eighty new kinds of cloth. Soc. Ant. Proc. Coll. September 16, 1605. The duke's deputies were charged with violent and unauthorized seizure of cloths, with blackmail and extortion upon the poor, with exacting annual rents from those in better circumstances and able to pay well for the privilege of being unmolested. The deputies were also charged with instituting warrants and suits with purely malicious purpose, and delaying, under pretext of pressure of business, to search and affix seals to cloths of those who did not offer special bribes to expe- dite the examination, — the delay causing ruinous loss, since owners were thereby too late for the market times. S. P. D. August 18, 161 1. After the re-issue of the patent, in 1613, complaint was made of a practice that had become common, which must have defeated the public object of the search, for the deputies were said to 28 ENGLISH PATENTS OF MONOPOLY king replied to the articles of grievance in his usual style, and pro- mised that lawsuits should be expedited. It was at this time that he found it expedient to publish his celebrated Book of Bounty, '^ which, later, was most adroitly used against him by the popular party. In this he solemnly renounced all intention of granting fresh patents of monopoly or privilege and forbade any to approach him with projects; the law of England and his own royal pleasure were alike opposed to such grants. How difficult it was to please the Com- mons with his most solemn protestations, James learned in 1614 when his second ParHament found material and opportunity for much discussion ^ upon the subject of monopolies. But this ill- fated Parliament was dissolved before it had accomplished any- thing. The interval between the first and the third Parliaments of James was characterized by the greatest diversity in policy and counsels. The irregular methods of deahng with patents gave to them an insecurity that impaired their potential or speculative as well as their actual values, and this must necessarily have resulted in diminishing whatever social usefulness they might otherwise have had. Grantees constantly complained of the necessity of con- testing projects that were being pressed in opposition to their own privileges. In the notable case of the glass patents an annual rent of the unusually large sum of £1000 was exacted, which was dis- tributed in the shape of annuities or pensions to former patentees whose rights were set aside.' In the case of a salt monopoly there was an example of the opposite method of quieting differences. A new patent was set aside and its promoter, in recognition of his have resorted to the device of openly offering for rent stamps by means of which drapers might seal their own cloths. Petitions and Parliamentary Matters, 1620-21, Guildhall Tracts, Beta, no. 16 (old no. 25). (This document, the full text of which I have reproduced in the Quarterly yournal of Economics, August, 1906, bears evi- dence of the beginnings of the cotton industry in the latter years of Elizabeth.) Abuses continued under this patent in the reign of Charles (S. P. D. 1628, cxxvi, 67, 68), during the Interregnum {Golden Fleece, by W. S., Gent., 1656), and later. See Edward Misselden's letter, S. P. D. April 17, 1621, for similar sale of seals for the old draperies. ' The Book of Bounty has been republished, with comments on its history, in Gor- don's Monopolies by Patents, 1897. * C. J. i, pp. 472-506. The glass patents received special attention. ' C. R. July II, December 12, 1614. See below, pages 71, 76. TO THE STATUTE OF MONOPOLIES 29 ingenuity in introducing improvements, was given a share in a fresh concession, which was substituted for the original patent enjoyed by the old patentees. At the same time, on the advice of Lord Chief Justice Coke, a third patent was revoked as " void at law," but a recompense for expenses was allowed out of the profits of the renewed patent.' In several instances, after a patent cover- ing a whole industry had been granted on the ground of a recent improvement, it was found necessary to suspend for a time the exclusive rights, owing to the inability of the patentees to satisfy the market demands.^ The Council was not, indeed, successful in binding itself. On one occasion, to cite a by no means isolated instance, it resolved that "hereafter no petition be entertained by this Board to the discouragement of the present patent." Yet only a few years later the Council revoked a second and created a third monopoly in the same article.' Its opportunist policy is further illustrated by the ready way in which patents were annulled "for reasons of state." The inconveniences that had arisen between 1590 and 1600 by reason of some of the patents had led to the gen- eral introduction in subsequent patents of a clause providing for revocation if they were found "inconvenient to the commonwealth." * ' C. R. Febraary 27, 161 5. * The Council authorized a commission to inquire into and adjust the price of glass sold to the London glaziers who complained of excessive scarcity. C. R. April 23, 1617. Isaac Bungar was licensed to continue temporarily his glass-mak- ing, accounting to Sir Robert Mansell, the new patentee, who was unable to provide the entire market. C. R. July 6, 1617. ' " Elliots and Meysey, patentees, received their grant after divers thorough proofs and have since expended much, — their patent is now infringed by others, and Palmer, a Dutchman, also seeks a patent for steel very prejudicial to the patentees and the realm." ..." Resolved that hereafter, no petition be entertained by this Board to the discWragement of the present patent." C. R. November 29, 1617. Later, Elliots and Meysey complained of an infringement " contrary to an order at the time Palmer's patent, fraudulently obtained, was cancelled." ..." Ordered that notice be taken of the information and the attempts suppressed." C. R. May 12, 1618. . . . But " upon complaint of the deputies of the United Provinces against the vio- lation of free trade according to treaties, in the patent to Sir Basil Brooke, Kt.," an investigation was ordered and the attorney-general was instructed to institute quo warranto proceedings. C. R. July 2, 1619. Finally, the Privy Council voted to further a petition for still another privilege for steel sought by Dr. Robert Flood. C. R. September 27, 1620. * E. g., see instructions to the attorney-general to insert clause for revocation by any six of the Council, in the patent for smalt. B. M. Add. 11402, June 11, 1605. 30 ENGLISH PATENTS OF MONOPOLY In consequence of the opportunity thus afforded, the government assumed an attitude that was as erratic as it was indulgent. Grants which could be so easily revoked might be all the more readily and safely passed, and, on the other hand, they were recalled whenever this was demanded by expediency and especially by the neces- sities of foreign diplomacy.' The reform in monopoly administra- tion, the increased red-tape, from which so much had been hoped at the beginning of the century, demanded for even partially effective operation a watchful and conscientions supervision. This was given by Lord Keeper Ellesmere, who in 1596 had asserted the responsibihties of his office,^ and under James continued to be the most uncompromising enemy of all suspicious projects and monopo- lies. His removal from office, in 1616, was occasioned by his refusal to sanction certain patents desired by the king's favorites.^ Bacon, his successor, was guided by no similar moral or legal scruples, and his complaisance produced its natural effect in a lax administration of the system. The middle of the reign, therefore, marked a distinct turning-point for the worse, both in the character and in the num- ber of the patents.* The king's disappointment over the withholding of parUamentary ' The Playing-card makers sought the office of searcher and sealer for Sir Rich- ard Coningsby. The petition was referred to Suffolk, Northampton, and Worces- ter, Treasury Commissioners, who approved, provided it should not prejudice the French treaty. The Commissioners for Suits were satisfied on this point, and the patent was issued. Soc. Ant. Proc. Coll. July 21, 1616. Later, the Privy Council announced the suspension of the patent and explained that " reasons of state" made it " unwise to press the informations against the merchants trading to France." C. R. December 20, 161 7. Similarly the Pinners' monopoly was prac- tically nullified. See Unwin, p. 167, quoting C. R. October 23, 1618, and March 21, 1619. See also C. R. July 22, i6ig : " At the instance of the deputies of the States- General of the United Provinces, the Lords are required by the king to consider the patent for prohibition of importation of pins contrary to treaties of free trade." . . . " The attorney-general is ordered to bring in a Vfrit of quo warranto or scire facias for avoiding of it." ' See above, pages 18 and ig. ' S. P. D. February 23, 1614 ; Gardiner, iv, pp. 3, 11. ' " For proclamations and patents, they are become so ordinary that there is no end, every day bringing forth some new project or other. In truth, the world doth ever groan under the burden of these perpetual patents, which are become so fre- quent that whereas at the king's coming in there were complaints of some eight or nine monopolies then in being, they are now said to be multiplied by so many scores." Chamberlain to Carleton, S. P. D. July 8, 1620. TO THE STATUTE OF MONOPOLIES 3^ supplies in 1614, and the pressing need for replenishment of the Exchequer, led to reckless and defiant financial expedients. If Parliament would not grant subsidies, no effort should be made to conform to its wishes, and thus, it was hoped, the crown might gain more than by constitutional government. At the time of the dissolution of the first Parliament in 1610, there seems to have been a strong tendency among the ministers to favor an independent financial policy. Because of the temporary check to their schemes, from the apparent inadequacy of their resources, the Addled Parlia- ment assembled. But the attempt to conciliate the Commons had failed, depriving the king of a parliamentary revenue that had averaged £100,000 a year ; ' and the search for other sources of revenue, monopolies among the number, was thereby greatly stim- ulated. The experience of Elizabeth's deahngs with monopolies was repeated. So far as revenue from the patent system was concerned, the attempt proved a complete failure. The most ambitious scheme for supplying the Treasury from the profits of monopoly was the alum project, which resulted so disastrously that the king was a loser by many thousand pounds.^ The three projects of the Buck- ingham ring* — the licensing of inns, that of ale-houses, and the gold and silver thread monopoly — failed to contribute much if any- thing to the Exchequer.' The subsidy of the new draperies yielded the king only ;£ioo annually, and the contributions from other patents were trivial in amount.* Thus, although James frankly attempted to manipulate industries in the interest of his revenue, his schemes were so ill-advised that regulation entailed greater expense than it returned. In 162 1 a new Parliament had to be summoned, and, with the difficulties besetting the crown at home and abroad, the time seemed propitious for the reforms which had so long been ' Prothero, p. Ixxxiii. ' See below, chapter on the Alum Works. ' See Gardiner, iv, ch. 33. * Gardiner, in ArchEeologia, xli, p. 226, and in his History, iv, p. 21, in attempt- ing to show how little was the fiscal gain from monopolies, really overstates the annual Treasury receipts. Excluding the alum and glass rents, which yielded no net profits, he estimates the crown revenue from the patents at about ;^900. His authority is S. P. D. ex, 35, August 27, 1619, an obviously inaccurate exhibit. Better statements in Somers, Tracts, ii, pp. 364-400, and Sloane, 2904, which 32 ENGLISH PATENTS OF MONOPOLY demanded in vain. A fair beginning was made in the proceedings against the three patents of the Buckingham ring. Of these Sir Giles Mompesson and Sir Francis Michell were the most active agents, though they long had the support of their principals, the Duke of Buckingham and his two brothers. Sir Edward and Chris- topher ViUiers. The House of Commons investigated the abuses under each of the patents in turn, and excitement rose so high that Michell was ordered to punishment, by so illegal a procedure that the Commons were obliged to retract and allow him to be punished by the upper House. He was degraded from knighthood and perpet- ually excluded from pubhc office. Mompesson escaped punishment by flight, but the duke and his brothers, on account of their power and influence, avoided impeachment. The three obnoxious patents were revoked by proclamation, and, shortly after the close of the session, eighteen other monopolies were cancelled while seventeen were offered to the test of the common law.' The opposition to the monopolies in 1601 had done little or nothing to discredit the ministers or officials, but the outcome of the struggle had demonstrated how difficult it was to attack the monarch in person. Now that it was once more possible to urge grievances, the leaders of the popular party took the course which proved to be the effective one, passed over the irresponsible head of the state and turned against his responsible agents, the officers of state and the referees. The public men who were thus attacked had doubtless miscalculated the force of opposition, but they could not have been surprised that it was directed against them, for most of them had anticipated it in the pains which they took to satisfy themselves of the legahty of the grants which they authorized. In the impeach- ment proceedings an institution was revived which had lain dormant since the days of Henry VI. Michell and Mompesson were only contemptible offenders, but the indignant Commons did not stop are also for the year 1619, agree with each other, and harmonize with Harl. 3796, fol. 68, for the year 1616-17. Alum, glass, and gold and silver thread rents were not net gains ; the imposition on sea coal and the subsidy collected on the new draperies were taxes which would have been levied even if there had been no monopo- lies. Hardly ^50 was annually derived from the true monopoly rents. ' See Appendix O. The account here given of the proceedings in the Parliament of i6zi is based upon Gardiner's History, iv, chs. 33-3S, and his Four Letters of Lord Bacon in Archaeologia, xli. TO THE STATUTE OF MONOPOLIES 33 here. They ordered an investigation into the conduct of the referees of the obnoxious patents, and it was only after both James and Buckingham had solemnly disavowed the excesses of the nominal patentees and promised redress that the proceedings against the referees were allowed to drop. It is, however, well recognized that the impeachment of Bacon was very largely inspired by the ill-feel- ing toward the man who was most responsible for the objectionable patents, because of his advice as attorney-general, his favorable opinions as referee, and his sanction as lord keeper and lord chan- cellor. In the second session, at the close of the year 1621, the House of Lords threw out a bill against monopolies,* but this appeared to be from no unfriendliness to the purpose of the measure; the objections were merely based upon its form, which was thought to be unflattering to the king.^ Hope was therefore felt that a bill would soon be passed through both houses. As far as it is possible to judge from the meagre reports ' of proceedings in the last Parlia- ment of this reign, the Statute of Monopolies was passed in both houses without much difficulty except as to its form. The results of the final conference of the joint committee of the two houses were adopted by the Lords on the twenty-second of May, 1624, and by the Commons three days later.* Just as the promises and plans of reform in the matter of grants were the last parliamentary achievements under Elizabeth, so the Statute of MonopoHes was the final legislative achievement of the reign of her successor. This was not only the last, it was the most important law passed under King James.^ Its significance was not so much due to radical innovation as to the emphatic parliamentary sanction which it gave to principles already accepted at common ' L. J. December i, 162 1. 2 L. J. December 3, 162 1. ' L. J. iii, pp. 261-412 ; C. J. i, pp. 670-794. Consult indices, art. "Monopolies." < L. J. iii, pp. 400 b; C. J. i, pp. 794. 5 " The legislation of James I did little more than follow out the lines laid down by his predecessor. His Parliaments spent much more time in the defense of their privileges and in discussions which led to no immediate legislative results. It does not follow from this that their work, regarded from the constitutional point of view, is less deserving of attention. In the time of James I it was more essential to assert constitutional principles and to maintain parliamentary rights than to pass new laws or to create new institutions." Prothero, pp. Ixii-lxiii. 34 ENGLISH PATENTS OF MONOPOLY law. The preamble recited that the king's Book of Bounty had stated "the ancient and fundamental law" against monopolies. The statute then declared that all monopolies, commissions, grants, licenses, charters, and patents for the sole buying, making, working, or using of any commodities within the realm were contrary to law. It was furthermore insisted that the vahdity of all grants should be determined according to the common law practice, and the penalties of praemunire were invoked against all who should attempt, by procuring any order or warrant, to stay the execution of the judg- ment of a law court. ^ The important exceptions, however, which were authorized by the act, opened a new chapter in the history of the monopolies. ' The text of the statute is given in full in Appendix A. CHAPTER III FROM THE STATUTE OF MONOPOLIES TO THE LONG PARLIAMENT, 1624-164O The Act of Monopolies excepted several classes of grants from its condemnation. It sanctioned monopolies of new inventions for fourteen years, and of these a very considerable number were granted by Charles I, patents for new processes being particularly numer- ous.' With these privileges the crown did not particularly concern itself after passing them. Their poHtical importance lay in the fact that it was possible by virtue of this exception to continue the practice of reducing settled industries to monopolies under cover of technical improvements. Existing monopohes also, some of which were specifically named, were not to be prejudiced by the statute if they had been granted for new inventions for not more than twenty-one years. This reservation the Privy Council inter- preted as a direct sanction for the particular monopohes named, and, on this pretext, quashed legal proceedings to test the legaKty of these grants,^ although the statute had explicitly directed that they should stand in the same position as before the statute, "and not otherwise." It is true that suits at law in such cases had been for- bidden before the enactment, but there was certainly no authority for emphatically claiming the warrant of the statute. The act of 1624 was, however, weakest in its failure to grasp the significance of the trend of monopoly toward corporate form. From the accession of Ehzabeth to the Civil War there was a process of gradual extension of monopoly privileges from a single individual to a group formed into a partnership or into a company. The usual form toward which the monopohes moved in their organiza- tion was that of a rudimentary joint-stock company. While the one-man monopoly was thus expanding in its organization, the com- ' Consult Specifications-calendar for the years 1625-1640. 2 See below, page 77. 36 ENGLISH PATENTS OF MONOPOLY panics of craftsmen or masters during this period were contracting, exchanging individual for collective trading, and subordinating the many to the rule of the few. Thus the companies, whose con- nection with the past was theoretically continuous, and the patentees, who had had their origin since the accession of Elizabeth, ap- proached one another in many of their most essential points, till in the reign of Charles the distinction between charters and patents lost practical significance. With the assimilation in organization there went a corresponding assimilation of function. The com- panies existed theoretically for regulation, while the patentees were originally authorized for exploitation, but this difference became of less and less importance, for as the patents multiplied they tended more and more to encroach upon established industries where their intervention could, for the most part, only be regulative; while on the other hand, the companies, as they tended to become more rigidly exclusive, aimed at industrial exploitation. Thus, as will appear in the following pages, the Soapboilers' Company of West- minster was an incorporation of a group of patentees originally formed to exploit an invention; but they soon took over the regu- lation of all soapmaking and thus virtually secured a monopoly of all soap production. On the other hand, the Company of Lon- don Soapboilers, who were incorporated to buy out the West- minster Company, were originally a group of independent masters, but after purchasing their right to reenter upon their trade, they ex- ercised their rights of search and apprenticeship in such a way as to concentrate the production of soap in a few hands, and it would appear that even within the Company the trade was organized under a small group of merchants.' This growing likeness both of organization and of function between patent and charter privileges was due primarily to economic causes, — partly to the inherent cen- tripetal tendency of privilege, partly to the need of capital. It was owing to the latter cause that the simple organization of a mo- nopoly under a single head had to be expanded into a corporate concern in which the capital was furnished by a number of persons. It resulted from both the former and the latter causes that the companies of small masters found it either expedient or necessary ' See below, chapter on the Soap Corporations ; The Soapmakers' Complaint, cited on page 126; also S. P. D. [August 23], 1653. TO THE LONG PARLIAMENT 37 to allow their industries to be subordinated to the few who either within or without their organization were able and ready to con- tribute the necessary capital. The partiaUty of Parhament for the old order, its prejudice in favor of the industrial security and independence of the small master, blinded it to the fact that the arbitrary protection of companies of craftsmen was a policy of monopoly in disguise, and the privileges of these companies were therefore exempted from the condemnation of the statute. It will be remembered that in 1601 Bacon had pointed out the inconsistency of the parhamentary bill which made an exception in favor of corporations.^ The crown, no less than Parliament, was bent on protecting the small masters, but it favored these monopolies on principle and not as an exception. When, therefore the statute exempted the companies of craftsmen, the reactionary royal poKcy was continued under the name of Corporations. The companies of the normal sort, growing out of the craft gilds, owed their origin to municipal recognition, frequently confirmed by royal charter. Their jurisdiction in any case continued to be only local. But, even before the enactment against monopolies, there had arisen, under crown patronage, a new group of companies enjoy- ing a national rather than a local jurisdiction. These not only owed nothing to municipal recognition, but very generally aroused local hostiHty. The London records during the reigns of James and Charles constantly bear witness to the opposition which these creatures of crown patronage excited on account of their encroach- ment upon chartered liberties of the city, and the hindrance which their exclusive privileges gave to older companies. A single illus- tration will serve to show that it was not the act of 1624 which first occasioned the creation of masters' companies to take over national monopolies. The Starchmakers' Company is a good early example of the Stuart policy of erecting corporations with a narrow and exclusive membership, but with such wide powers as to subordinate an industry throughout the whole country to the direction of a few men in the metropoHs. The incorporation of this company was not accompHshed without some difficulties. The projectors desired a charter sanctioned by king, courts, and Parliament.^ The judges were unofficially consulted but would not approve the charter with ' See above, p. 21. ^ Titus, B, v, fol. 249. 38 ENGLISH PATENTS OF MONOPOLY exclusive privileges unless the making of starch from wheat flour were prohibited by act of Parhament. But a bill brought into Parliament was indefinitely committed after second reading, and it was necessary to be content, therefore, with the royal sanction alone. This was secured by a bargain, in accordance with which the following arrangement was effected. A proclamation was issued declaring that great mischief had resulted from the late queen's revocation of the starch monopoly, and the manufacture was thence- forth to cease.' Then a subsequent proclamation authorized the manufacture in certain houses under the supervision of commis- sioners.^ Shortly afterward the London starchmakers concerned in the project were duly incorporated on the conditions which they proposed, commissioners were appointed, and an imposition was laid upon foreign starch.^ The Grocers protested vigorously against the Starchmakers' Company.' They showed that great incon- veniences were resulting from the monopoly in a few hands of the manufacture of starch, prices having been doubled; they appealed to the traditional right of a freeman of any London company to exercise any trade. Frequent proclamations were issued to re- affirm the prohibition to all not of the company.^ Like many of the corporate monopolies of the period, this one had a checkered career. It was suspended in 1610, and all domestic manufacture forbidden." This prohibition caused even more complaint than the monopoly, especially from the Grocers, and the attempt at its en- forcement was apparently soon given up. Within two years it was proposed to reincorporate the illicit manufacturers.' In 1619 a commission was issued to license some of those who were disobey- ing the proclamation,' and in 1622 the Starchmakers' Company was reconstituted by incorporation of the hcensees, notwithstanding the protests of the Grocers and the city of London." ' S. P. D. Add. (1606?), xxxviii, 105. * S. P. D. Cal. August 23, 1607. Proc. Book, p. 151. ' S. P. Docq. October 21, December 23, 1607, March 14, 1608. < Rep. February 4, 1608 ; Rem. February 5, 1608. " For example, R. O. Proc. Coll. no. 8, July 5, 1608. ' Proc. Book, pp. 220, 232. January 10, May 21, 1610. ' Lansd. 152, fols. 118, 120, 122, 124, 128. ' Grant Book, p. 285. June 16, 1619. • R. O. Proc. Coll. no. loi. May 16, 1622. TO THE LONG PARLIAMENT 39 Incorporation, however, reached its climax after the act of 1624, and especially during the policy of "Thorough" from 1635 to 1640. One of the boldest plans was to reduce to com- pany management and regulation all the traders in the suburbs of London.' All traders and artisans who did not already belong to a company were to be obKged to join the new company. En- trance fees and fines were established and, not least important, rents for the crown. There was to be a general restraint upon all from exercising any trade, unless free of this or of some London company. The scheme had for its excuse the jealousy and friction which always existed between the members of companies and their rivals, who settled in the suburbs free from company jurisdiction and drove their trade unhampered by rules. Three other projects will serve to illustrate the attempt to centraUze the regulation, if not the production, of certain articles. The Playing-cardmakers in London and within a radius of ten miles were incorporated, with the right of search throughout England. Whatever card- makers were without the corporation would fall in the general fate of all independent producers whose work was subject to the inspection and sealing of competitors. A rent of 12s. per gross was reserved to the king, and another 12s. per gross was to be exacted as a fee for sealing. Later, the king undertook to engage directly in the business. By the new indentures, the king covenanted to purchase of the company a weekly quantity of cards. The king expected to sell at an advance which would yield him £5000 or ;£6ooo annually.' Similarly, the London Silkweavers, incorporated in 1631, were allowed by their charter of 1638 to extend their control over the whole kingdom. This was a more serious matter than in the case of the Cardmakers, for Canterbury was one of the oldest centres of the silkweaving industry. The Canterbury and other silkweavers were required to join, or be "translated" to, this com- pany, which was to enjoy a rigid monopoly, in return for which the company was to pay a rent of 8d. per lb. from native weavers and 1 2d. per lb. from resident aliens. It was agreed that the broad ' S. P. Docq. April 8, 1636; Soc. Ant. Proc. Coll. February 24, 1637. 2 S. P. D. May 15, 1637, October 18, 22, 1628; S. P. D. cccclxxvii, 64, Feb- ruary, 1641; civ, 62, 1629; clxxxv, 18, February 17, 1631 ; Docq. April, 1637; Unwin, pp. 144, 145. 40 ENGLISH PATENTS OF MONOPOLY loom, recently invented, should be suppressed.' The case of the Pinmakers of London and England and Wales was an attempt to reconstitute a company originally chartered under James in 1605, after which date there had been a series of attempts to attain mo- nopoly privileges,^ until at last the Pinners' Company had been granted the preemption of all pins imported, as well as the sole right of manufacture in London and its vicinity.' These privileges were, however, shortly afterward suspended to conciUate the Dutch, and the company was not revived uiitil 1635, when a new charter of incorporation was granted, conferring the usual rights of searching, seaUng, and making ordinances. Importation was now strictly forbidden. It was stipulated that the price of pins should not be raised.^ By this charter, all the pinmakers of the kingdom were subordinated to the London company. The mo- nopoly was still more thoroughly concentrated in 1640, when the king himself undertook to supply capital to the extent of ;£io,ooo, but he farmed this function at once for ten years." The results of the schemes here described were very meagre. In most instances a derangement of the industry affected was the only outcome. Having their inception so shortly before the Civil War, it was im- possible that many of them could have had even a fair trial. Some corporate monopohes which had more vital strength are reserved for treatment in subsequent pages, while those here considered are of interest chiefly as exemplifying the comprehensive pohcy of industrial control which the crown and Council endeavored to administer. Except upon fiscal considerations, it is difficult to see how the most thorough of reactionaries could have sanctioned the unpre- cedented extremes to which corporate regulation was carried in many cases. But Charles was dependent upon unparhamentary ' Docq. May, 1631, May, 1638 ; S. P. D. [August 25], 1639. It is interesting to note the statement that the tax levied by the king upon the weavers was shifted by them upon their workmen, by the practice of keeping more apprentices and by paying lower wages. 2 See Unwin, pp. 164-171. 8 Soc. Ant. Proc. Coll. July 22, 1618. < See above, page 30. ' Docq. August, 1635. ' Docq. April, May, 1640; C. R. March 18, 1640. TO THE LONG PARLIAMENT 4^ revenue even more than his father had been in the years from 1610 to 1620, for between 1629 and 1640 there were no Parliaments nor subsidies. The promotion of corporations was simply one of many shifty devices for raising money independent of parliament- ary supplies. This purpose was in some measure attained, since the monopolies which Charles created were, much better calcu- lated to yield revenue than those that were established in the two preceding reigns. Charles did not confine himself to the practice of charging fixed annual rents, but, wherever possible, levied a small fee on each unit of sale. In the case of established industries now upon the pretext of reforming and preventing abuses brought under corporate control, a revenue proportional to output would be con- siderable. The companies thus constituted furnished the machinery necessary for collection, and a tolerably vigorous set of agents, at no expense to the king. Not only were the monopolies granted largely in the fiscal interest and the rents accordingly made the chief concern, but a new policy was adopted in the sale of privileges. The policy was new at least in the thoroughness with which it was carried out. Previously, some initial profit may have been occasion- ally and incidentally derived from the granting of privileges, but, until the period of personal government under Charles, there had been no bold and undisguised practice of putting concessions up at auction with the deliberate purpose of exacting the highest bribes that could be realized. While, however, considerably more money flowed into the Treasury from this source than formerly, it is not to be supposed that the royal receipts at all corresponded to the amounts that were paid for the privileges. The statement of one who wrote within two years of the king's death suppKes a terse explanation of what actually happened: "He was held the bravest commonwealth's man that could bring in the most money, yet the king's private purse or public treasury little or nothing bettered, but to impoverish and vex the subject and to no other end: for which he was ordinarily rewarded with honor." ' A more explicit statement ^ comes from a moderate royalist who did not attempt to conceal the faults of government under the king's personal rule : ' Welldon, The Court of King Charles, ii, p. 41, in reprint of i8i i of Secret His- tory of the Court of James I. ' Clarendon, History of the Rebellion-, Oxford, i888, Bk. I, § 148. 42 ENGLISH PATENTS OF MONOPOLY "Projects of all kinds, many ridiculous, many scandalous, all very grievous, were set on foot; the envy and reproach of which came to the king, the profit to other men, insomuch as of ;£2oo,ooo drawn from the subject by these ways in a year, scarce ;£i5oo came to the king's use and account." The inherent weakness of the personal government could not be better illustrated than by this quotation. The government was an irresponsible one, and there was no effec- tive check upon the dissipation of funds. The king reigned without accountability, and to do this he required the connivance of at least a few to carry out his wishes. These were in a position to draw from him, unchallenged, the larger proportion of all that arbitrary measures could collect.^ Yet, notwithstanding his failure to con- trol the collectors, Charles managed to gain from the monopoUes far more than his predecessors had done. It is impossible to esti- mate what was received from the sale of charters and from the charges imposed upon units of product, but the total could have been no inconsiderable amount. At the end of the period of personal government, there is evidence as to the income from the monopolies. The alum industry had come to yield modest rents ^ instead of en- taiUng expense as heretofore. The wine hcenses brought in ;^3o,ooo.' The tobacco licenses, expected in 1626 to be worth ;£i325, were producing ;£i3,o5o.^ Soap yielded ;^30,825, of which ;£29,i2S came from the company in the metropoUs.* No other monopoly paid as handsomely, but some returned very fair incomes. An annual revenue of fy^o was received, for instance, from playing-cards and dice." In all but name, an excise system had been established, which imposed substantial indirect taxes upon internal trade. ' Compare Pym's remarks in the Short Parliament : " Such illegal things are badly accounted for to the king, whereas legal things will soon be discovered if not accounted for. Besides, in monopolies and such like the third part comes not to his Majesty's coffers, as to instance in that of wines. The king hath only ;£'3O,000 per annum upon them, whereas the wines in the gains by the patent come to ^^230,000, and the same proportion holds in all the other monopolies ; hereby it appears how much the subject is damnified and how little the king gains." Pari. Hist, ii, pp. 549 ff. (Clarendon evidently understated the net revenue from the monopolies.) * Egerton, 2541, fol. 266; Harl. 3796, fols. 75 ff. See below, page 99. ' Pym's estimate of the king's revenue from the wine monopoly was confirmed by a semi-official estimate of the following year. Egerton, 2541, fol. 266. ' B. M. Add. 34318, fol. 40 ; Egerton, 2446, fol. 14; 2541, fol. 266. ^ Egerton, 2541, fol. 266. * Egerton, 2541, fol. 266. TO THE LONG PARLIAMENT 43 Charles did not shirk the responsibility which he assumed in his vain attempt to govern without the assistance of Parhament. The pohcy of "Thorough" was not an empty platitude. The king himself set the example by his careful attention to the affairs of government. He was regularly present at the now very frequent and well attended meetings of the Council. In the proceedings of this body the monopoUes commanded a considerable share of attention. That it was not more successful in dealing with them was due in part to the fact that it was distracted by other schemes which promised more revenue, but called for more of its labors, — notably by ship-money. It was due in part also to an old difficulty, — its dependence upon the good- will of the local authorities.' The latter difficulty was partially solved by the increasing resort to Star Chamber proceedings, by which the councilors could punish offenders with heavy fines which discouraged infringements, at the same time that they helped to fill the exchequer. In the reign of Elizabeth the Star Chamber had been looked upon "not as an instrument of tyranny but as the guardian of order, while even in that of James I a very large part of the business that came before it arose from suits brought by private persons," ^ though in this reign were heard complaints of abuses of Star Chamber jurisdiction.' Under Charles, however, the resort to this tribunal was carried to unprecedented lengths.* It was the purpose of gaining Star Chamber ■ " The Lords are sorry to find that the benefit which his Majesty intended his people . . . should turn to their prejudice, which would not have happened in case magistrates and other officers of justice had been as careful in the execution of his Majesty's directions as his Majesty was to publish them." C. R. June 13, 1634. 2 Prothero, pp. cvi, cvii. " " Indeed, the world is much terrified with the Star Chamber, there being not so little an offence against any proclamation but is liable and subject to the censure of that court ; and for proclamations and patents they are become so ordinary that there is no end, every day bringing forth some new project." Chamberlain to Carle- ton, S. P. D. July 8, 1620. * Hyde wrote that the Star Chamber " extended its jurisdiction from riots, per- jury, and the most notorious misdemeanors, to an asserting all proclamations and orders of state, and to the vindicating illegal commissions and grants of mono- poUes." Clarendon, .^/rf. Bk. Ill, p. 262. Pym complained in the Short Parliament : " Great courts do countenance these oppressions, as to instance in the court of Star Chamber advancing and countenancing of monopolies which should be in stead of this great council of the kingdom ; and the Star Chamber is now become a court of revenue ; ... It was not usual for mtum and iuum to be disputed there. The privy 44 ENGLISH PATENTS OF MONOPOLY jurisdiction that led to the promulgation of the large number of proclamations in support of monopolies,' contempt of the royal prerogative, expressed by disregard of a proclamation, furnishing a pretext for deaUng with the infringer in that court/ The penalties there imposed were very severe,^ and, if the political situation had made possible the unrestrained exercise of this engine of enforce- ment, infringment might have been effectually prevented. The Council was constantly beset with urgent demands for the councillors should be the lights of the realm . . . but now if these councillors should so far descend below themselves as to countenance, nay even to plot projects and monopolies, what shall we think of this ? Surely it is much beneath their dignity. This is a grievance, but I must go higher. I know that the king hath a transcend- ent power in many cases, whereby he may by proclamation guard against sudden accidents ; but that this power should be applied to countenance monopolies (the projectors being not content with their private grants without a proclamation) is without precedent." Rushworth, ii, p. 1138; Pari. Hist, ii, pp. 549 ff. ' The revival of the practice of legislation by proclamation, under the Stuarts, was based upon the specious claim of the prerogative. Such legislation had once been authorized by a statute giving the force of law to the king's proclamations, 31 Hen. VIII, t. 8, but this act was repealed by i Edw. VI, c. 12, § 4. Proclamations continued to be employed to amplify statutes, but the only proclamations making entirely new law, which retained parliamentary sanction, were those regulating the course of foreign trade. 26 Hen. VIII, c. 10. A Treatise of the Court of Star Chamber (temp. Charles I) relates that foreign trade under Henry VII and Henry VIII was governed by regulation of Star Chamber, where summary jurisdiction gave prompt and inexpensive relief. But now the merchants are so haughty they must govern their own trade and therefore lose a great help. The Merchant Adventurers and Hansards prospered while they leaned on the strong arm of the state, but now not being able to defend them- selves, have devised a means of protection, by obtaining letters patents under the great seal, reinforced by proclamation. Infringers are then informed against in Star Chamber as for breach and contempt of proclamation. (The undertakers for tin under Prince Henry, against Dunning and other Pewterers, were the first to resort to this.) But direct dependence on Star Chamber would settle and govern trade better, and free the king from " much clamor which ariseth from the multitude of grants and erecting of new companies tending to monopolies, which if the former course were observed would either never pass, or being passed upon such public examination, would take away all clamor from the king." Lincoln's Inn MSS., Coxe, xc. 2 For cases, see Rushworth, II, ii, App. (Report of Decrees in Star Chamber, 1625- 37), pp. 31, 34, 41, 69, 70, 82 ; and Gardiner (Camden Soc), Star Chamber Cases. 3 It was customary to remit a considerable portion of each fine, but on this account it became usual to make the fine so high that it would be large even after the reduction. In some monopoly cases, the customary mitigation of fines was not granted. See below, page 120. TO THE LONG PARLIAMENT 45 recall of certain grants, most of which were definitely upheld after inquiry, although some were suspended for a time.^ Finally, in 1639, fearing to meet the Parhament which soon had to be called with the grievance of the monopolies still unremedied, and dis- trusting the device that had done good service before, — the promise of allowing the patents to be put to the test of the common law, — the Council by a single act revoked a long list of patents, Ucenses, and commissions.^ A few orders ^ were subsequently made, sup- plementing the original order of revocation. It may have been hoped that by such decisive action public attention would be di- verted from some cherished patents that were purposely omitted from the orders, but these did not escape the vigilance of Pym,^ and the Committee of Grievances placed the monopohes first on its hst of abuses relating to property." A dissolution soon put an end to the dehberations of this "Short Parhament" and the monopohes figured as one of the "evils and dangers" in the state in a petition for a new Parhament, presented to the king at York by a dozen peers. ° On the third of November, 1640, the Long Parhament assembled. The principal speeches against the monopohes were made by Pym ' and Colepepper.' Several members resigned or were ' C. R. April 14, 1631, a promise to Lady Richmond that in the investigation about farthing-tokens, her interests will be regarded. April i, 6, 1636, iron-marking patent considered. June 24, 1636, patent for sealing bone-lace suspended. Febru- ary 19, 1637, refusal to revoke patent for marking iron. February 28, 1638, patent for leaden seals for new draperies revoked. December 19, 1638, salt revocation refused. May 30, September 16, 1638, refusal to revoke the patent for lamperns. 2 C. R. March Ult. 1639. See Appendices Q and R. = C. R. April 5, 28, 1639; April 12, 1640. * Pari. Hist, ii, p. 549, April 18, 1640. 5 Pari. Hist, ii, p. 561, April 22, 1640. « Pari. Hist, ii, p. 586. ' Pari. Hist, ii, pp. 641, 642. ' Rushworth, iv, p. 33, ascribes to Colepepper the following speech, and gives commentaries explaining the allusions : " These men, like the frogs of Egypt, have gotten possession of our dwellings, and we have scarce a room free from them. They sup in our cup, they dip in our dish, they sit by our fire ; we find them in our dye-vat, wash-bowl, and powdering-tub ; they share with the butler in his box, they have marked and sealed us from head to foot. . . . They have a vizard to hide the brand made by that good law in the last Parliament of King James ; they shelter themselves under the name of a Corporation ; they make bye-laws which serve their turns to squeeze us and fill their purses." 46 ENGLISH PATENTS OF MONOPOLY expelled ' in pursuance of a resolution disqualifying any monopolist from sitting in the House of Commons.^ A large number of the monopolies were "called in" by the Long Parhament, which, in cancelUng them, boldly assumed a function that hitherto, with rare exceptions, had been jealously forbidden by the crown. It was distinctly an encroachment by the legislature upon executive func- tions, and in normal times would have been considered a most unjustifiable and dangerous innovation. But the justification lay in the very unusual circumstances of the time which prevented either the crown or Parliament from adhering very closely to con- stitutional precedent. With this action of the Long Parliament, the internal monopolies ceased to be a poUtical grievance, though agitation still continued to be directed against the commercial monopohes. Some domestic privileges were not immediately revoked, and some were allowed to continue throughout the In- terregnum, but they no longer possessed pohtical interest. ' The practice of expelling monopolists from the House of Commons had begun in the first session of 1621. C. J. March 21, 1621. 2 Resolved " That all projectors and monopolists whatsoever ; or that have any share or have had any share, in any monopolies ; or that do receive, or lately have received, any benefit from any monopoly or project ; or that have procured any war- rant or command for the restraint or molesting of any that have refused to conform themselves to any such proclamations or projects ; are disabled by order of this House to sit here in this House; and if any man here knows any monopolist, that he shall nominate him ; that any member of this House that is a monopolist orpro- jector shall repair to Mr. Speaker that a new warrant may issue forth ; or otherwise, that he shall be dealt with as with a stranger, that hath no power to sit here." Pari. Hist, ii, p. 651. PART II INDUSTRIAL HISTORY PART II. — INDUSTRIAL HISTORY CHAPTER IV THE MINERAL COMPANIES The preceding pages of political history have had reference to the monopolies as a system; they have dealt with the origin, develop- ment, and perversion of the policy, and with the struggle to over- throw the system. In other words, the patents have been treated as a whole, and the arrangement of chapters has followed a simple chronological order designed to study the fortunes of the privileges in general, at successive periods. The object of the following pages is to trace the results of the monopoly policy in the development of industries, and here a different order of presentation is desirable. These results can better be ascertained by the topical study of a few of the more important industries than by scattering attention over the entire field. The selection of monopoHes for this discussion has been guided, by two considerations: first, to choose only those which were established with the avowed purpose of stimulating particular industries; and second, to take only those with respect to which it is possible to construct a fairly continuous narrative. The eight industries here considered have been chosen therefore entirely without reference to the conclusions to which their history might lead; but these chapters have been made as circumstantial as possible, in order to furnish a substantial basis for a judgment as to the economic influence of the monopolies. The Mines Royal. The "royal" mines constituted one of the earliest of the Eliza- bethan monopohes. Negotiations were commenced as early as 1561 with Steynberg, a German, and Thurland, master of the Savoy, for the purpose of opening up certain mines in England.* ' S. P. D. July 16, :s6i. 50 ENGLISH PATENTS OF MONOPOLY Indentures were drafted but not passed until a royal commission had been appointed ^ to inquire into the mineral resources of the kingdom. Presumably after a favorable report, a patent was granted^ on the tenth of October, 1564, to Houghstetter ' and Thurland. The patent reserved for the first six years a tenth of the precious metals as royalty. It conferred the sole Kcense to dig for gold, silver, copper, and quicksilver in the northern and western counties of England and in Wales, with power to purchase land and to take up workmen at reasonable wages, and the sole use of any instruments or tools not used in England within the last twenty years. Shortly after this the patentees were freed from all obHga- tions for the payment of subsidies and fifteenths.* Numerous other privileges were given them, such as the use of the queen's timber for building and for fuel,^ a commission to apprehend disorderly persons in their employ," the privilege of licensing a tavern at their works,' and to erect houses for lodgings on the moors.^ Meanwhile Thurland had spent so much in his search for metals that he was arrested for debt and had to appeal to the crown for relief." He asked for an incorporation and permission to give shares to Pem- broke, Leicester, Cecil, and Duckett.^" Work had already begun on a copper mine in Cumberland,*' and, to facihtate the work, the queen allowed Steynberg to borrow five hundred crowns from the Fuggers, upon the security of her agent. Sir Thomas Gresham, to be used in introducing twenty German miners into England." Thurland, though deeply in debt, continued to write of the progress of the enterprise " until the coveted charter was obtained." From the time of the incorporation there is little suggestive evidence ' Lansd. 5, no. 47, July 8, 1563. ^ Pat. 6 Eliz. pt. 3; S. P. D. September, 10, 1564; Pettus, Fodinae Regales, p. 49. ' A German introduced into the enterprise. For further particulars concerningthe Houghstetter family, consult Ehrenberg, Das Zeitalter der Fugger, Jena, 1896, i, pp. 212 ff., 234, 252, ii, 46 ff., and Hamburg und England, Jena, 1896, p. 4, n. 6 ; see also below, pages 53, 61. 4 S. P. D. April, 1565. « S. P. D. July, 1565. » S. P. D. July 27, 1565. ' Pat. 8 Eliz. pt. 3. 8 Pat. 8 Eliz. pt. 5. » S. P. D. July 30, 1565. '» S. P. D. xxxvi, 95. " S. P. D. September 2, 1565. " S. P. D. E. Add. xiii, 32 ; S. P. D. September 1566 (xl, 73, 74). " S. P. D. October 7, November ii, 1566, March 7, September 29, 1567. " Pat. 10 Eliz. pt. 9 (May 28, 1568). THE MINERAL COMPANIES $1 as to the work of the company until 1597, when Steynberg and Houghstetter wrote ' to Robert Cecil from Keswick that the works were very low, and that the seasons had been wet, spoiUng their peat. They prayed for indulgence, showing that they could not go on successfully till an assessment had been levied. A "stock" of .£2000 should always be on hand, they said, and that they had not had. In 1599, the Privy Council wrote to Lord Scrope,^ directing him to investigate the condition of the work. "Great cost," they said, "had been bestowed upon the copper works of the royal mines near Keswick, far above any commodity that has come to the company by them; for their desire was that her Majesty and the realm might be served with that commodity to make ordnance, rather than stand to the courtesy of strangers who served the realm as they pleased. The managing of the works has been hitherto committed to strangers, who pretended to have dealt plainly with the company, yet are thought to have sought more their own private lucre than the bene- fit of the company which, nevertheless, remitted great sums of the rent due by them for their encouragement to continue the work." In the next year the accountant of the works at Keswick sent in a statement ' of the finances of the enterprise : — The whole cost for the past thirty-seven years had been . . . £104,709 Sales of silver, lead, and copper equalled 68,103 The queen's royalties amounted to . . ... 4)5oo And the loss to the company arid others was .... 27,000 A new patent was asked, and request was made that those who would not share in the contribution of ;£iooo needed to replenish the work might be excluded from the company. A charter, with the clause desired, was granted in the second year of James I.^ At this time the governors of the company admitted by impUcation that nothing had been accomphshed under the first charter.^ The company apparently did not even attempt to accompUsh anything under its second charter. It continued to exist, and its shares had perhaps more value to the holders than they had enjoyed ' S. P. B. July 18, 1597. '^ S. P. D. June, 1599, cclxxi, 40. 3 S. P. D. December 23, 1600. ' See Pettus, pp. 63, 64. 5 S. P. D. Add. Febraary 12, 1605. 52 ENGLISH PATENTS OF MONOPOLY under Elizabeth, for the society now settled down into a mere privilege-monger. It still had valuable privileges which were worth maintaining, for it was vested with the monopoly of metal-mining in Wales and the north of England. Private prospectors were there- fore obhged to come to terms of agreement with the company. Leases were granted by which the real adventurers undertook all the costs, and assumed responsibility in addition, for rents, to the king and to the society.' Thus the monopoly tended to discourage mining enterprise by levying a toll upon profits for purely private advantage. Meanwhile there was no compensating pubHc advan- tage contributed by the individual members, whom the charter was designed to encourage. They seem to have been content to leave enterprise entirely to others. "There is none of that com- pany that advances any works that I can learn," wrote Malynes in 1622.^ The society did not even perform the service expected of it, in regulating the mining industry vvathin its jurisdiction. The overworked Privy Council intervened to set down regulations for prospectors, and the crown arranged for leases to adventurers independently of the company." While indifferent to most undertakings, the society was ready to claim its rents from important concerns. The operations of Myddle- ton and of Bushell constitute the most successful achievements under its auspices.* Neither of them received any help from the company but paid heavy rents solely for the privilege of operat- ing. Hugh Myddleton took a lease from the society in 161 7 and paid a rent of ^ifio per annum in addition to royalties to the king.^ He carried on extensive operations in Cardiganshire, where mines had been already, but unsuccessfully, worked. He cleared and drained the mines, and within a few years succeeded in producing silver in considerable quantities, which was coined at the Tower of London." And in recognition of this and other services he was knighted.' The king also confirmed and prolonged his lease and ' Pettus, pp. 76-78. ' Lex Mercatoria, pt. z, ch. ;:. ' See calendars S. P. D. 1623-28, article " mines " in indices; R. O. Proc. Coll. Jas. I, p. 121 ; C. R. July 19, December 30, 1623. * For other mining enterprises subject to the Company of the Mines Royal see Malynes, Lex Mercatoria., pt. 2, ch. 2. ' Pettus, p. 33. ' Harl. 1507, no. 40. ' Sloane, 4177. THE MINERAL COMPANIES 53 remitted the knight's fee.' From 1620 to 1636 it was said ^ that the mines yielded on the average one hundred pounds of pure silver weekly, and the larger quantity of lead had of course a higher total value. Myddleton is commonly supposed to have made a large profit here, but the statement ' that he gained ;£20o per month must have been an exaggeration. As late as 1623 the works were not on a remunerative basis, and the king wrote ^ to Myddleton not to be discouraged, but to continue his mining operations, "which would be rewarded in due time." The profitable period of the venture must have been between 1623 and 1631, when Myddleton died. After his death the mines "were again drowned and decayed." ^ The restoration of the Cardigan mines and works was due to Thomas Bushell. His attention was called to the possibilities of the Welsh mines, and he sought from King Charles a commission to restore and operate them under direct crown patronage. But "his Majesty, for some reason to himself known, declined the same" and "commanded" Bushell to purchase the lease still held by Myddleton's widow. Bushell accordingly secured the lease, pay- ing Lady Myddleton ;£400 in cash and £,&po per annum for rent during the remainder of the term of her lease. The king granted a confirmation of the transfer, promised " any act of grace or assist- ance" that might be needed, and gave warrant to the attorney- general for Star Chamber proceedings against any who should hinder Bushell. At his first entrance upon the work he found it very discouraging, for the mines were flooded. But he was urged by Joseph Houghstetter and other mining experts in his employ to persist, and after working four years "night and day," and with an expenditure of ;£7ooo, he claimed to have succeeded. From his own description, it is evident that he was the first to deal success- fully with the problem of deep-mining. His predecessors had only worked near the surface or on hillsides where adits could drain the mines, and their pumps had been very crude and insufficient. Bushell, however, began working at the lowest levels and cut through the main rock a hundred fathoms perpendicularly, employ- ' S. P. D. October 19, 1622 ; February 21, 1625. 2 S. P. D. October 22, 1636. 3 Pettus, p. 33. * S. P. D. March 31, 1623. <■ Certificate of Joseph Houghstetter et al. in Bushell's Tracts. 54 ENGLISH PATENTS OF MONOPOLY ing German methods, "chargeable yet certain," and hitherto unknown in Great Britain; and he drained the mines by means of the chain-pump. He was almost, if not quite, the first to succeed in reducing ores with the use of coke. His method of mixing rich ores with poor but more fusible ones in the smelting process was also a decided advance. At the expiration of Myddleton's lease the work was charged with a heavier rent. Before Myddleton's death the Privy Council had taken advantage of its increasing responsi- biUty for the administration of the mines, and had deprived the society of its jurisdiction over the Cardigan works, and they were reserved for the direct interest of the king.' Therefore, when the lease fell in, Bushell had to make a new contract with the king, at an increase of ;^iooo in the rent, and paid beside a gratuity of a thousand marks. He also undertook to farm the customs from the export of lead. His operations as a whole appear to have been moderately successful, but they did not make him rich. Bushell was one of the most successful of the numerous men who contrived to maintain cordial relations with the successive governments in the troubled years from 1640 to 1660. To each in turn, whether out of power or in power, he "had always been" unswervingly loyal. For Charles I he equipped six thousand troops, according to his own statement made in 1664, and in other ways had contributed to the royal cause out of the profits of his mines and local mint, and the king in 1643 recognized his services over his own signature. Bushell was forced to desert his mines and take refuge in the isle of Lundy, which he held for the king. In 1646, "having obtained his Majesty's consent," he accepted the bargain offered by the Committee of Both Kingdoms, and surrendered the island to the parliamentary party on condition of being restored to his mines. In the next year the sequestration of his property was removed by a parliamentary ordinance, and he resumed his works and came into cordial relations with the popular party. He received a patent from the Protector Cromwell, February 16, 1654, which was renewed by Richard Cromwell, February 5, 1659. At the Restoration, he petitioned for indemnification for his expenses on behalf of the late king, and for his loss by the sequestration of his property for twenty years by "the usurper Cromwell" on account of his loyalty to the king. He ' C. R. December 30, 1623. THE MINERAL COMPANIES 55 also sought protection from his creditors for two years, hoping in that time to recover from the works enough to repay his debts con- tracted on the king's behalf.* An appropriate conclusion of this survey of the operations under the society of the Mines Royal is furnished by a writer of the Resto- ration whose statements never underestimated the prosperity of the mines : — " By the death of the first German artisans, and the neglect of a continued stock, and the want of fuel, and the succeeding wars, all those mills and works siand ready, though much out of repair, for the ingenuity of the present incorporators or others." ^ The Mineral and Battery Works. Simultaneously with the organization of the Society of the Mines Royal, another company was formed with similar privileges in the eastern and southern counties. William Humphrey of the royal Mint associated with a German, Cornelius Shutz, who bound him- self ^ in ;^io,ooo to teach his arts to the English. They received, jointly, two patents in 1565, one for mining gold, silver, copper, and quicksilver in specified counties,* and the other for lapis calaminaris,' or calamine stone, a zinc-bearing ore which was used in conjunction with copper in the manufacture of latten. During the first year the patentees were active in their search for mines and in assaying.* Arrangements were also made for the erection of wire works, and these were reported ready, with a weekly capacity of 25 cwt.^ This enter- prise from the outset was more interested in manufacturing than in mining. The projectors indulged in relatively little speculation, and they did not entertain any illusions as to the immediate success of their undertaking. "Years may pass before any profit can arise," wrote Humphrey to Cecil.' Humphrey and Shutz, and their silent ' For Bushell's undertakings, consult fust and True Remonstrance, 1642 : The Case of Thomas Bushell, 1649; Bushell's Abridgment, 1659; and supplementary notes in Bushell's Tracts. See also Diet. Nat. Biog. article " Bushell." 2 1670. Pettus, p. 32. ' S. P. D. August 16, 1565. * Pat. 7 Eliz. pt. 9 (September 17, 1565). ^ Pat. 7 Eliz. pt. 8 (September 17, 1565); see also 8. P. D. xxxvii, 40-44. • S. P. D. November to, 27, 1565 ; June 14, 30, November 7, 1566. ' S. P. D. July 23, 1567. * S. P. D. November 22, 1567. 56 ENGLISH PATENTS OF MONOPOLY partners, received a charter of incorporation ' at the same time with the other mineral company, and shortly afterwards Humphrey took advantage of the incorporation by proposing to levy an assess- ment upon those who had accepted shares in the company.^ The chief work of the company was its wire industry at Tintern in Monmouthshire. The Tintern works were operated on succes- sive contracts. During the incumbency of Sir Richard Martin as governor of the company, he is said to have gained £900 a year by taking the contracts himself. This was about the year 1584. Sub- sequently, he farmed the works to Hanbery. In 1592, the prosperity of the work was so great that Martin was able to farm it to others at £1000 a year. But the new farmers found that Hanbery, during his incumbency, had secured control of the mines of Monmouth- shire which produced the only good Osmond iron used at the Tin- tern plant. He had also "engrossed" the woods around about and charged the new farmers exorbitantly for all their fuel; and the iron which he furnished was of inferior quality, so that "Flemish wire was now better than English." For four years, in consequence, the works yielded no profit, and although Martin had been able to farm them out, it was only at :£55o.' Shortly after this certain persons enticed away some workmen from Tintern Abbey, and with their help set up and began to operate wire works at Chilworth in Surrey. They also employed engines claimed to be an infringement of the company's privileges. A prosecution was instituted in the Exchequer against the infringers, Thomas Steere and others, in ' Pat. 10 Eliz. pt. 9 {May 28, 1568). The privileges of the company covered all their future inventions. A case arose concerning the lead miners of Mendip, who used a sieve and furnace claimed to have been invented under the auspices of the company. An injunction was obtained in 1574 and another in 1581. The case was tried in the Court of Exchequer, whence a commission was appointed to investigate. It was shown that the lead miners had previously used substantially the implements in question. The claims of the company were denied by the court, though a slight improvement was admitted to have been introduced. The court, however, held that it was " easier to improve than to invent." This was the first of the legal decisions upon the difficult question of improvements. The three cases cited by Fuller in the case of Monopolies were all questions of improvement, where the attitude of the law was rigidly in favor of the older workers. Lansd. 24, nos. 45, 46; 56, no. 47 ; Exch. Decrees and Orders, Mich. 17 Eliz. ; Noy, pp. 173 ff. ; Hulme, L. Q. R. April, 1896. 2 S. P. D. July II, 1568. ' Lansd. 75, nos. 87, 90; 81, nos. 5, 9 (March, June, 1596). THE MINERAL COMPANIES 57 1603. A commission was appointed and depositions taken ' which showed that Shutz's invention of drawing wire by water-power had been adopted by the infringers. The reply of the company to the defendants' pleadings was a long one, which furnishes a circumstantial account of the work of the society. It sets forth that before Shutz came to England all wire-drawing had been by unaided human strength, "in the Forest of Dean, in the country of Gloucester, and in the north parts." Most of the wire came from abroad, and wool-cards were imported ready finished, for wire-drawing was too expensive under the old processes. After the estabhshment of the works at Tintern, so much was produced that it was necessary to export to Turkey and elsewhere, and frequently £3000 worth lay unsold as long as a year. (This at least was the statement of the plaintiffs, though from it one might suspect that the quality was not good enough for the English market.) The company introduced many skilled workmen from abroad, two of whom received each ;£8o per annum in wages. The plaintiffs offered in argument before the commissioners that although they had enjoyed >their patents for about forty years, "they have not yet received back out of the profits thereof and thereby, not one half of the money that they and their predecessors had laid out about the same works." The infringers had a great advantage over the company, because they operated nearer London and thus had less cost of carriage. But the plaintiffs contended that to remove their own works in order to compete on equal terms it would be necessary for them to join in the destruction of woods near London, and at the same time throw out of employment "many thousands" of handicraftsmen in Wales, Somerset, Wilts, Devon, and Cornwall, and in the cities and towns of Bristol, Sahsbury, Exeter, Bath, Gloucester, and Worcester, who were engaged in drawing and workiiig up the wire made at the works. Judgment was given against Steere, but the court adopted the rough-and-ready justice of requiring the victorious plaintiffs to buy up the stock and tools of the defendants and to take Steere into their employment at reasonable wages. ^ A few years before the settlement of this suit Parhament and the crown joined in a new policy of bolstering up the industry. The ' Exch. Dep. by Com. (Hil.) 2 Jac. I, no. 12. 2 Exch. K. R., Mem. R., Trin. 4 Jac. I, 61. 58 ENGLISH PATENTS OF MONOPOLY reverses of the enterprise, resulting from trouble at the works and the competition which had to be met, had brought a demand for protection of the wire-drawing industry and its " many thousands of poor" employees. The governors of the company added that the wire which they produced was better than that made abroad, and that EngUsh wire was consequently exported to France and returned to England in the form of card- wire.' It will be recalled that for another purpose the company argued that it should be sup- ported against Hanbery, because foreign wire was better than the Enghsh.^ But Parhament was easily convinced by a mercantihst argument, and in 1597 an act was passed prohibiting the importation of wool-cards,' the principal product manufactured from Tintern wire. The ostensible reason for the prohibition was that "false and deceitful" wares were introduced by the Dutch and Germans. Mercantihst argument, however, was resourceful. A quarter of a century later, protection was asked for wire as well wool-cards. The act of 39 Eliz. "has lately been evaded" by the manufacture, within the realm, of cards made of imported wire! ^ The petition was re- ferred to the Privy Council and by that body to specially appointed referees.^ The result was a proclamation forbidding the importa- tion of iron wire, for "English wire is made of the toughest and best Osmond iron, — a native commodity," — and is better than foreign wire, especially for wool-cards. ° Until shortly before the resort to protection, the wire works had enjoyed a moderate measure of prosperity. The gains had been steady, even though small, both in revenue and in markets, and an industry had been estabhshed which was strong enough to survive the inertia and mismanage- ment of the early part of the succeeding century and the disorders of the civil war. It may therefore be reasoned that by the display of some energy the enterprise might have held its own in the face of foreign competition. But protection was an easier remedy and was accepted as a convenient substitute for enterprise, and thereafter no material progress was made. The explanation which was given by an interested party for the stagnation of the industry was that the protection was not thorough enough. "By reason of the acts ' Lansd. 52, no. 22. * See above, page 56. ' 39 Eliz. c. 14. * S. P. D. September 4, 1629. 5 S. P. D. April 2, 1630. ' R. O. Proc. Coll. 6 Car. I. no. 123. THE MINERAL COMPANIES 59 of Parliament made against importing foreign wire are something imperfect, and for other reasons," the works "afford little: to which also the society will doubtless have more regard, because it concerneth somewhat the good or ill of the clothing manufacture, by the exportation of our wire, and the importation of foreign wire." * The patent for calamine stone lay unused for nearly twenty years. Some foreign workmen were introduced to start the industry, but they accomplished nothing, and the Battery Company soon devoted its entire attention to the iron wire works. But in 1582 there was an opportunity to license the latten wire manufacture. John Brode of St. Giles- without-Cripplegate contracted to pay ;^so per annum during fourteen years for the privilege of setting up this industry. At Isleworth in Middlesex he also spent ;£35oo in order to "bring it to perfection." After eight years of experimenting he succeeded in "establishing" the industry, manned with EngUsh workmen. He claims to have been the first to make English latten strong enough to withstand water-driven hammers. He also bought up all the available deposits of zinc-bearing ore or calamine stone. The company claimed that he did not maintain his rents, and that he kept his process secret. When his lease fell in, in 1596, the com- pany farmed the works at ;^400 to others. It was at once complained that Brode was hindering the new farmers in their purchase of calamine, and an order was obtained from the Privy Council com- manding Brode to furnish calamine for the work at reasonable prices. Ten years later he was still seeking payment for the materials thus supphed and for redress for his losses.^ Such real progress as was subsequently made in this industry seems to have been ilhcit. A London Pevrterer, who in some way, probably on account of the inertia of the company, contrived to evade its monopoly for twelve years, invested heavily in a plant for manufacturing latten wire, and introduced many foreign workmen. He sold his product for ,£6 per cwt., but when Lyndsey farmed this industry from the com- pany, he proposed to sell the same product for £8 or £10.' Lyndsey's hope of success involved the fortunes of the Pinners. He engineered ' Pettus, pp. 32 ff. 2 Lansd. 81 nos. 1-4; Hist. MSS. Com. Rept. iv, 117, House of Lords supple- mentary calendar, 1605. 3 S. P. D. May 24, 1639. 6o ENGLISH PATENTS OF MONOPOLY their project for a monopoly in his own interest. As a result of his efforts, the Pinners Company of London was granted a monopoly of the English market for pins ' on condition that they would make their pins of wire furnished from his works, although foreign wire was better suited to the manufacture of pins.^ The arrangements under this contract were never carried out, for the Long Parlia- ment, which met in the following autumn, made it impossible to pursue the plans agreed upon. In 1665 the copper used in England was entirely imported, the English being still dependent upon the Dutch and Swedes for their suppUes of copper and most of their brass, while Welsh zinc was exported in the ore.' A contemporary petition of the brass manufacturers shows that the Swedes under- sold the EngUsh who attempted to revive the latten works, and, after they had command of the market once more, raised the price. A countervailing duty, the petitioners claimed, would cause plenty of rough copper to be brought in." In judging the merits of the two mining monopolies, full credit may be given to the worthy motives that originally inspired them. Their creation was due to the feeling on the part of the crown and the ministers that it was economically and strategically important to develop the mineral resources ^ of the kingdom. They knew that to do this it was necessary to offer adequate inducements to foreign master-workmen to bring into the country the metallurgical arts of the continent. They took the obvious means of encourage- ment, and, so far as the mere introduction of industries was con- cerned, they accomplished their purpose. That the means they adopted were perhaps not the most suitable, that at any rate the privileges granted were too extensive, was an error due to lack of experience. It must be remembered that these two concessions were the first important patents of monopoly. Many lessons were > C. R. March i8, 1640. ' " It was necessary to harmonize these two jarring monopolies by subordinating them both to a higher conception of mercantile policy. The possibility of maintain- ing a steady market for unsatisfactory English wire was dependent on the possibility of maintaining a regular demand for unsatisfactory English pins." Unwin, p. i58. ' Dudley, Meiallum Martis (p. viii of the epistle to Parliament), 1665. ' The petition is reprinted in Stringer's Opera, p. 157. * See Cunningham, ii. pp. 53-63, in 3d ed. THE MINERAL COMPANIES 6 1 learned from these concessions, and subsequent grants were naturally made with more precision. In a review of the results of these two monopolies, it is evident that their object was accomphshed in some degree, for the industries thus introduced were permanently established within the country. Particular kinds of technical skill were transmitted from the alien workmen to the Enghsh, who at least kept the spark alive until a more favorable time. They formed the nucleus, indeed, of the work-masters who revived the metallic industries of a later date. They had acquired sufficient familiarity with such work to qualify them for introducing further improvements. But, having stated this much to the credit of the monopoHes, some qualifications are necessary. Admitting that met- allurgical arts were naturalized by means of the monopoHes, it must be stated that the fact had little importance at the time, nor, indeed, till long afterwards. The chief mineral resources of the realm, tin, lead, and coal, were unaffected by the societies. Copper and zinc were the metals which chiefly concerned the societies, but in the production of these they contributed little and exacted much. The form of the privileges was most unfortunate. Such rigid monopoHes went far toward defeating their own end. That they were broader than was necessary to tempt the foreigners to intro- duce their arts, or to encourage natives to finance them, is de- monstrated by the fact that neither of these companies availed themselves of all their rights, but reserved many only for special exigencies, to save themselves from troublesome competition. Priv- ileges directly proportional to actual undertakings would probably have been as tempting as perpetual grants covering all mines in the country, for Shutz was content to develop his wire-work, and Houghstetter, according to tradition,' soon dropped his active con- nection with his company and retired into Wales, where he founded a family. On the other hand, the grant of monopoHes in the hands of two companies which did not exercise them tended to discourage enterprise and adventure outside the companies. The societies had most to gain by confining their attention to a few concerns which enjoyed a close market. Outside the monopolies it was discour- aging to operate, for the companies were ready to suppress or levy tribute upon any undertaking which proved successful. ' And cf. above, page 53. CHAPTER V THE MECHANICAL INVENTIONS The ordinary sources of information as to the results of the six- teenth and seventeenth monopohes are ahnost silent as to the many privileges that were granted for mechanical inventions. The fact is that no single one of the inventions of this character proved of firstrate importance. In the aggregate, they represent a fair state of mechanical activity, some ingenuity, and considerable teachable- ness. They indicate that Englishmen were ahve to the value of technical improvements, and that they were introducing them from all sources — domestic and foreign. The whole period was one of great industrial expansion, and it was this condition rather than a system of governmental encouragement that caused the unusual exercise of mechanical ingenuity. In the mechanical progress that took place the patents were not leading factors. Some of the most successful mechanical innovations of the period did not enjoy any patent. The patent system could not create ingenuity, which is dependent upon far deeper influences than are at the command of government. The influence of the patents was at best indirect. The mechanical inventions which were of the greatest importance were for draining and water-raising. The influence back of the various pumping and draining devices was the mining activity in the various parts of the country. The operations of the two mining companies, and of the lessees under them, have already been noted. Several mining interests which antedated 1560 were beyond their control. In all these the problem of deep mining was becoming an important one. At the beginning of the seventeenth century it was believed that the Newcastle coal supply was nearly exhausted,' for by that time the surface deposits had been pretty well worked. During Elizabeth's reign, deep-shaft lead mining was tried with- out success, although considerable sums of money had been staked ' Proceedings Arch. Inst. Newcastle, 1852, p. 186. THE MECHANICAL INVENTIONS 63 upon the venture under Bevis Buhner, one of the most resourceful engineers of that reign.* In iron mining an attempt at draining was made in 1573,^ but nothing is known of the results. In tin mining there is positive information of attempts at deep shafts and drainage,' and there may have been some slight relation between these attempts and the increase in production about the middle of the seventeenth century. About one fifth of the inventions that were patented between the years 1620 and 1640 were for various water-raising and draining devices, showing not only the relative importance of the problem of improved drainage at this time, but also the great activity in attempts to meet the growing economic need.^ It is noteworthy that the accounts of mining enterprise, as well as the patent rolls, point unmistakably to the conclusion that the improved appliances in mining were introduced by Germans. The engines commonly used for water-raising in the coal mines of England in the seventeenth century were those which were known on the continent in the sixteenth century.^ The two mining corpo- rations owed their charters to the introduction of Germans and the most important mining operations that were ever conducted under their leases were carried out by Bushell, who stated that his success was due to German methods.* The patents for drainage themselves confirm the evidence from the mines, by the German names of many of the patentees, as well as the frequent direct state- ment as to the place of origin of the " invention." Among other such patentees in the sixteenth century were Burchsard Cranick, Daniel Houghstetter, John Synnerton, and Peter Morris, all of them either German or Dutch, who patented inventions for water-raising and drainage.' It is less easy to discover the chief agents of activities 1 Bushell's Abridgment. 2 Pat. 15 Eliz. pt. 5 (October 28, 1573). ' Patents, December 31, 1562, June 22, 1563. ^ Specifications of Letters Patent for Invention, 1617, nos. 3, ig, 21, 29, 34, 37, 42, 48, 49, 50, 57,66, 67,76, 84, 105, no, 114, 117, 125. These patents were issued at quite regular intervals, usually one a year. 5 Gallovfay, Annals of Coal Mining and Coal Trade, 1898, pp. 152, 153, 157. Compare Agricola, De re Metallica, 1559. 8 See above, pages 53, 54. ' See Hulme, L. Q. R. April, 1896, January, 1900. 64 ENGLISH PATENTS OF MONOPOLY of this sort in the seventeenth century, because the preference for conferring privileges upon natives led to the practice of petitioning for grants in the name of an Englishman. But as England looked to Germany, High and Low, for all her technical progress, it is to be inferred that a majority of the patents were of continental origin.' It is probable, therefore, that there was little native mechanical genius in England. There were, to be sure, professional men of genius, but though men like David Ramsey and the Marquis of Worcester ^ invented new things by the score and by the hundred, they cannot be considered industrial leaders. The latter, indeed, probably invented Httle in the modern sense of the term "inven- tions." In that period it is a significant fact that the popular and even the legal meaning of the word "inventor" covered not only the originating but also the importing of technical ideas and pro- cesses.^ Indeed, imitation of the foreigner was a much more im- portant factor than "native wit." The latter long found its chief scope in adapting foreign devices to domestic conditions. But this eager, imitative apprenticeship bore its fruit in the following cen- tury when English mechanical skill, joined with scientific genius, furnished the tools for the Industrial Revolution. In passing judgment upon this group of patents the motives are easily disposed of. None of the patents were more free from any suspicion of selfish interest on the part of the crown. The rents or fees were merely nominal, and it is clear that it was the intention to grant them to the persons justly entitled to them. There is some reason to suspect that in the Stuart days this intention was occa- sionally defeated by rogues near the throne, who, hearing of a pro- ject, contrived to secure a privilege for themselves,* perhaps with the purpose of extorting bribes from the only persons to whom such a privilege could have a working value. In other cases, how- ever, patents were quite legitimately granted to natives for ahens in order to meet popular objections. These grants corresponded in motive and character to the industrial patents of our own day, ' This indebtedness was remembered as late as the eighteenth century, when, for instance, the ribbon loom was still called a " Dutch loom." ' Consult Specifications, and also A Century of Inventions by the Marquis of Worcester, 1663. ^ See above, p. 24, and Appendix H. • See, e. g., S. P. D. July 1610, Ivi, 47, 48. THE MECHANICAL INVENTIONS 65 and if any exclusive privileges were justifiable on the ground of social utility, these probably were. They deprived no person of any rightful occupation; they surely did not confer rewards dispro- portionate to the value of the inventions. Whether the public gained or suffered by them is, of course, a question which depends entirely upon the results. The paucity of evidence respecting them is a reasonable warrant for concluding that there were at least no grave pubHc abuses in their exploitation. But there were certain tempo- rary circumstances which rendered their social results more ques- tionable than is the case to-day. Contrary to what might on first thought be supposed, the conditions of the sixteenth and seven- teenth centuries were in some respects less suitable for a patent system than are modern conditions. For every advantage by way of encouragement that a special privilege gives, there are certain disadvantages to those excluded by the patent. A patent system is justified only when the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. With industry highly specialized this may easily happen. An in- ventor of machines may set himself to supplying his product to all who will take it of him. Hence none who will buy need go without. But this is far from the situation of the seventeenth cen- tury. Markets were not wide enough to permit an inventor to devote his whole attention to the production of a machine of a certain pattern. Indeed, we hear of no workshops in England where machines were made for sale.* An engineer or producer con- trived or adapted a particular machine for a particular need. If he secured a patent, his rivals were Ukely to go without, unless they infringed his grant, since he could not afford to be drawn aside from his main work to produce for his rivals. An attempt was made to obviate the difficulty by conferring the sole right to license others to use an invention. But a successful inventor had no desire to hcense his rivals, and he did not need to, for there was no genuine specification published. He could therefore still keep his invention secret. Thus the patent had only the advantage of safeguarding the inventor to some extent against the danger that his invention might be discovered. Indeed, as might have been expected under the cir- cumstances, the most successful mechanical apphances, with a few exceptions, were not patented at all. The patents that were taken > But cf. above, page 4, note 2. 66 ENGLISH PATENTS OF MONOPOLY out were for inventions of minor or doubtful value. The important mechanical inventors were not without government aid, but they took it in a more comprehensive form than a mere grant for an appUance. Their work, therefore, did not depend upon the encouragement of the patents for invention. Mechanical skill was directed largely toward mining, water supply, and drainage, and in all three of these directions the incentive was the concession of substantial privileges of exploitation, rather than the mere pro- tection of technical processes. CHAPTER VI THE GLASS PATENTS A POOR form of window glass seems to have been made in England in the fifteenth century, and was said to have been in use by the common people. Green bottle glass was also made in the region of the Sussex iron works where sihca and potash were easily obtainable.' In the early part of the sixteenth century there were numerous glass makers in England, some of them natives and some from the Low Countries and Venice.^ Their product was in the main of a very coarse variety.' The finer forms of drinking and crystal glass, as well as most other glass wares, were imported as expensive luxuries by the glaziers.^ In 1567 a patent was granted to Carre and Becku (alias Dolyn), who had come into England as a result of the Low Country disorders and had erected three glass works, promising to introduce the Lorraine art.'^ But the patentees were merchants rather than master workmen, and depended upon one Briet, who within a year quarrelled with Dolyn and withdrew across the Channel with the workmen." Dolyn then tried to use the services of native workmen, but in vain,' and he appears thereafter to have done nothing more than to attempt to levy toll upon the output of new adventurers.' The industry, however, did not appear to be dependent upon royal protection, and an appHcation which the patentees made in 1576 for a renewal of their privileges " met with no response, for in the meanwhile others had set up works of the same sort, which were important enough to make their depredations upon the forests noticeable. In 1589 there were said to be fifteen glass works in England, and seven years earlier their numbers were 1 Hulme, Antiquary, November, 1894. ' Page, Denizations, introd. pp. xlv, xlvi. 3 S. P. D. August 9, 1567. * Lansi 48, no. 78. * Pat. 9 Eliz. pt. II (September 8, 1567). ' Lansd. 59, no. 76. ' Hist. MSB. Com. Rept. vii, p. 621 (Loseley MSB.). ' Lansd. 59, no. 72. • Lansd. 22, rio. 7. 68 ENGLISH PATENTS OF MONOPOLY large enough to cause the lord treasurer to make an effort to collect "rents" of them to replace the customs lost.* In 1585 an effort was made to secure the enactment of a statute regulating the em- ployment of aHens and checking the destruction of timber by glass works.^ We are told that during Elizabeth's reign eleven glass- houses were "put down" at Chiddingfold on the Sussex side or Sussex-Surrey border. The authority ' for this is not the most reliable, but at all events many glass makers were moving westward in the last decade of the reign, obviously in search of new fuel supplies.* Among the early workmen, unprotected and unaided by royal favor, were Delakay and Orlandini of Venice,^ who did not continue long in the industry; George Longe," who petitioned for a monopoly in 1589; some French workmen in Sussex,' em- ployed after the massacre of St. Bartholomew by the father of Evelyn, the diarist; and an unnamed Itahan who worked at Guild- ford.* Glass was also made in several places in Kent after 1572.' The most important names, however, are those of the families of Henzey and Tyzack, who were related to the great 'gentilshommes verriers ' of Lorraine; " and the Bungars, who had similar connections with the glass makers of Normandy.** They were probably Hugue- • nots who, for religious reasons, severed their continental relations about 1570. They brought with them the skill of their respective famiHes, and became and continued until the nineteenth century the most accomplished English workers in glass. They were involved with the patentees of 1567; but the patent seems to have been a hin- ' Lansd. 59, nos. 72 and 75. 2 Hist. MSS. Com. Rept. iii, p. 5 ; Lansd. 59, no. 75. ' Aubrey, Nat. Hist, and Ant. of Surrey., iv, p. 36. * Hallen, Scottish Antiquary, April, 1893, p. 151 (Early English Glass-makers). ' Hist. MSS. Com. Rept. xiii, pt. 4, p. 62. ' Lansd. 59, no. 72. ' Hartshorne, Old English Glasses, p. 169, quoting Evelyn, without indicating the reference of volume and page. ' Kempe, Loseley MSS., app. p. 493. ° Antiquary, April, 1905, p. 127. i" Beaupr^ : Les gentilshommes verriers dans Pancienne Lorraine, 2" ed. Nancy, 1846. " Le Vaillant de la Fieffe, Les verreries de le Normandie, les gentilshommes et artistes verriers Normands, Rouen, 1873; Hallen, Scottish Antiquary, April, 1893, pp. 146 ff. THE GLASS PATENTS 69 drance rather than a help to them, and their work prospered without exclusive privilege as soon as the quarrels of the patentees set them free, with other glass makers, to pursue their own ends. They sought privileges but did not receive them, and though the industry remained for a time open to all, these families soon became the chief pro- ducers in England, and their works were scattered over many parts of the country.' In the next reign the Bungars held aloof altogether from the patentees, and were their most active rivals. The Henzeys and Tyzacks also competed to a certain extent, but in general pur- sued a more concihatory policy and accepted positions under the patentees, though not very cheerfully. Whatever success the pa- tentees enjoyed in the early Stuart period was due to them. Meanwhile an effort was being made to develop the manufacture of drinking glasses, and a patent was granted to an Italian, Giacopo Versehni, for the sole manufacture for twenty-one years, and with a prohibition of importation from abroad. It was declared that all might buy freely of him in gross or at retail.^ The glass-sellers nat- urally opposed the patent,' but without avail. Such complete powers would seem to have been all that should have been necessary for a successful undertaking. But perhaps only the most complete com- mand of the market would have been a sufficient inducement to establish in England such an advanced form of the industry. The enterprise at all events had many diflSculties. Within a year of the patent the Crutched Friars glass house, where the undertaking was located, was burned to the ground.* It was rebuilt however, before 1589,' and probably before 1581, as in the latter year the Privy Council was involved in an unfortunate attempt to deal arbitrarily with Orlandini, who with a new partner ° was infring- ing Versehni's patent.' Infringement seems to have been a serious difficulty in this enterprise, probably because the makers of other kinds of glass were tempted to carry on this branch of the industry as an incident to their main work. During Versehni's connection with the undertaking httle is heard of it except the infringements. ' Lansd. 59, no. 76; 59, no. 72; 22, nos. 6, 7, 8; Hist. MSS. Com. Rept. vii, p. 621 (Molyneux MSS. August 1569); Hartshome, p. 170; Hallen, op. cit. ; and Hulme, Antiquary, December, 1894, p. 262. 2 Pat. 17 Eliz. pt. 13 (December 15, 1574). ' Lansd. 48, no. 78. * Stow, Annals, p. 680, Howes's ed. 1631. ' Lansd. 59, no. 77. 8 See above, page 68. ' C. R. February 19; May, 28, 1581. 70 ENGLISH PATENTS OF MONOPOLY The grant for twenty-one years had expired before any great work had been accomplished.' In the mean time a grant in reversion had been issued to Sir Jerome Bowes, covering the identical priv- ileges which Versehni had enjoyed, and with more stringent regu- lations against infringement.^ The only economic justification for this second patent would have been that the first had not been successful. But this was too weak an argument, and the real reason was frankly stated. It was given in consideration of Sir Jerome Bowes' s personal services to the crown, and of a rent of a hundred marks per annum. The grant was renewed at its expiration,^ and in the next year the reversion was granted to Hart and Forcett ' for twenty-one years, to begin three years after Bowes's death. Edward Salter received a patent for certain glasses not included in any of these patents.^ The renewal of Bowes's patent was made at a time when the industry was no more prosperous than when he received it in the first instance.^ At the time of the renewal, large arrears of rent were due to the crown.' It was not long after this that a new project was set on foot, which not only caused the revocation of this patent, but also practically absorbed all branches of the glass industry in England. The glass industry, like the iron industry, encountered difficulty in procuring cheap fuel. Glass making had, however, an advantage in one respect, for its plants were not expensive and could readily be abandoned and new ones built whenever the wood of the neigh- borhood was exhausted.^ But this destruction of the forests aroused great popular opposition.' Hence the French glass making families had been impelled westward, first to the Forest of Dean, and then to Staffordshire and Worcestershire," where there was more abun- 1 See S. p. D. April i6, 1624. ' Pat. 34 Eliz. pt. 15 (Febraary i, 1592). ' Pat. 4 Jac. I, pt. 15 (October 5, 1606). * Pat. s Jac. I, pt. 24 (October 8, 1607). 5 Pat. 6 Jac. I, pt. I (February 15, 1609). « S. P. D. April 16, 1624. ' S. P. D. September 8, 1605. ' Lansd. 59, no. 72. ' See for example, Hist. MSS. Com. Rept. xiii, pt. iv, pp. 75, 76. "• Hallen, Scottish Antiquary, 1893, p. 151 ; Grazebrook doubts whether there were any glassworks near Stourbridge before the proclamation of 161 5. The noble Families of Henzey, Tyzack, etc. 1877, p. 10. But he himself cites the name of a Tyzack from the parish register of Kingswinford, not far from Stourbridge, of the date April, 1613 (p. 12). See also note 2 on next page, and page 72, below. THE GLASS PATENTS 7 1 dant timber. But the supply of wood even in Worcestershire was becoming exhausted ' and the presence there of surface deposits of coal stimulated experiments with this fuel.^ The glass makers left behind in Surrey and Sussex adopted the use of coal not long afterward.' The first patent,^ however, was secured by a court attendant, Sir WiUiam Shngsby, carver-to-the-queen. SHngsby was neither an inventor nor a glass maker. He appropriated a design introduced from Hungary and Germany by "a poor man" whom he defrauded of his right.' Shngsby admitted that the French- men had been the first in the field, but based his claim upon their incomplete success." His own success, however, was no greater, and his rights were set aside, despite his protest,' in favor of a new project.' A patent ° was issued to Zouch, Thelwall, Percival, and MefHyn, giving an exclusive privilege for the use of sea-coal in the manufacture of glass. Though Slingsby's patent was set aside, the rights of the patentees of 1606-09 were for the time being re- served, and they were protected from infringement as before." But the several patentees at once came into conflict with each other, and the Privy Council was called upon to settle the dis- putes." The outcome of all the proceedings was that a new and exclusive patent was granted to Sir Edward Zouch and his part- ners " setting aside completely the rights of Bowes and Salter under their respective patents; but as a recompense for their losses the ;£iooo rent reserved was assigned in pensions " to the old patentees. The quality of Zouch's glass may be surmised from a ' Dud Dudley, who entered upon the management of iron works at Stourbridge, in 1619, said that the industry was decaying there for want of wood, " though for- merly a mighty woodland country." Metallum Martis, p. 62, in ed. of 1858. 2 A petition to Parliament in 1624 calls upon Lord Dudley to witness the fact that glass was first made with coal on his estate, Stourbridge, Worcester. (S. P. D. April 16, 1624.) Dud Dudley confirmed this statement. Metallum Martis, p. 70. 3 See Sturtevant, Metallica, Appendix S, below. * Pat. 8 Jac. I, pt. 12 (July 28, 1610). » S. P. D. July 27, 28, 1610. « Harl. 7009, no. 4,fol. 9. ' S. P. D. February 26, 161 1. » Lansd. 266, fol. no. » Pat. 9 Jac. I, pt. 29 (March 25, 161 1). '» C. R. May 12, 30, July 18, 1613. " C. R. July 29, August 6, 31, October 31, November 14, 1613. S. P. D. Novem- ber 17, 1613. See also Gardiner, iv, p. 9. 1' Pat. ir Jac. I, pt. 16 (March 4, 1614). 1' C. R. July II, December 12, 1614; Sign Manual (v, no. 85), March 17, 1616. 72 ENGLISH PATENTS OF MONOPOLY certificate which is ambiguous only in its formal wording. The glass is pronounced good and clear, but uneven and full of spots.* Neither the farmers under Bowes's patent nor the independent glass makers yielded gracefully to Zouch's monopoly. Several makers of drinking and crystal glasses were imprisoned for their obstinacy,^ and the French broad-glass makers persisted in using coal. The Privy Council issued warrants to messengers of the Chamber for the apprehension of Paul Tyzack ' who had several plants in Staffordshire and Worcestershire, and for the arrest of four of the Henzeys and two of the Tyzacks in Sussex.* For the relief of the latter it was ordered that the patentees should buy up their materials and equipment at reasonable prices, provided the Sussex glass makers would give up their skilled workmen for the benefit of the patentees.' The new patentees were anxious still further to strengthen their position, and to this end they admitted into partnership two powerful courtiers, the Earl of Montgomery and Sir Robert Mansell. A new patent recognized the arrangement." Henceforth the patent was under the guidance of Mansell, whose name was most intimately associated with it, and who in fact eventually acquired the entire interest.' Before Mansell joined the undertaking, it had already acquired control, as far as the govern- ment was able to enforce its orders, over the most promising part of the industry, for the most efficient and economical plants were already worked with coal, since glass smelting did not present the same obstacles as iron smelting. There yet remained two steps to be taken before the patentees could enjoy complete control over the industry. The manufacture of glass with wood for fuel was a traditional industry owing nothing to any patent, or at least no- thing to any patent then unexpired. This part of the industry was destined to decline, but its existence side by side with the monopoly would be an embarrassment. For a long time to come, it might remain an active competitor with the new method, and might even have the advantage in case the monopoly were not well managed. ' Kempe, Loseley MS S. p. 493. ' C. R. September 6, 30, 1614; January 13, 161 5. = C. R. November 18, 1614. * C. R. November 30, 1614. ' C. R. December 2i, 1614. ' Pat. 12 Jac. I, pt. 3 (January 19, 1615). ' See S. P. D. December 10, 1618. THE GLASS PATENTS 73 And beside the disadvantage of having to compete both in qual- ity and in price, there would be the constant danger that the old glass makers would secretly use the new method, and the equally great inconvenience that the monopoly might be too closely watched to allow it quietly to use the old method. Yet to grant an exclusive monopoly over the whole industry would be too clear a violation of law, for it would contravene the decision in the Case of Monopohes in the most open and direct way. There was also danger from foreign competition. But the government was ready with an expedient. A proclamation was issued which prohibited the use of wood in the melting of glass, on the ground that it was necessary to protect the forests. Importation was forbidden at the same time.' As only the patentees were entitled to use coal, this proclama- tion of 1615 marks the final step in the realization of a complete monopoly in the glass industry. The patentees were granted all glass forfeited by virtue of the proclamation.* Henceforth the glass monopoly engaged nearly half the attention which the Privy Council devoted to the patents. Steps were immediately taken to prevent the monopoly from losing any of the advantage which it had now acquired. Orders were issued for the apprehension of certain glass workers who were suspected of a design to retire from the country.* Among the number was a certain Joshua Henzey, described as a "servant" of Sir Robert Mansell.^ Warrants were issued ' for the suppression of glass houses in the interest of Mansell. A letter was sent to the chancellor and barons of the Exchequer, directing them to call offenders before them and punish them summarily." Open warrants of assistance were intrusted to Man- sell.' Those infringing the patent or the proclamation were sum- moned before the Council, their goods seized, and bonds required of them.' Complaints against Mansell began at once to come in, ' R. O. Proc. Coll. May 23, 1615. S. P. D. clxxxvii, no. 42. 2 Grant Bk. p. 165. ' C. R. January-December, 1615, ii, 8, 115, 126. See also C. R. April 2, 1630. < C. R. March 17, 1616. ' C. R. April 7, 1616. « C. R. ii, 57, 58 (1618). ' C. R. December 30, 1617. » C. R. 1618-25, iii, 354 ; iv, 57, 58, 260, 305, 334, 335, 354, 356, 448, 450, 455, 461,674; V, 86, 87, 96, 97, 100, 104, 144, ig6, 226, 229, 480, 602, 628, 636, 704; vi, 15, 16, 40, 41, 67, 68, 99, 402, 403. 74 ENGLISH PATENTS OF MONOPOLY and they accumulated rapidly. The glass, it was said, was now poor, undersized, scarce, and expensive. And it was certified that wood was being consumed in Mansell's works.' This patent was called in question in the Parliaments of 1614, 162 1, and 1624.^ In a statement prepared in defence of his patent during the debate upon the monopoly bill, Mansell recounted his struggles and previous failures to establish the industry. After unsuccessful ventures in London,' the Isle of Purbeck, Milford Haven, and on the Trent, he claimed that he had at last succeeded at Newcastle,' where he was "saving fuel," "increasing shipping," keeping 4000 (!) men employed and making cheap glass.^ In a counter petition all these representations were severally denied by the independent glass makers, who treated the whole question soberly and soundly. They showed that since Verselini's patent in 1574 there had been a continuous succession of monopohes in glass, and that during this period of fifty years the patentees had as far as possible excluded all others from the trade, but had done little or nothing to advance the art themselves, and that very few if any natives had been instructed in it, although this was supposed to be the chief motive of the grant. The glass industry, instead of being advanced, had been retarded, because many glass makers who could not get satisfactory employment under the patentees had passed beyond seas to seek a livehhood, carrying English skill to foreign countries." Mansell, they pointed out, had raised prices, though ' C. R. April 23, 1617 ; S. P. D. March, 1620 (cxiii, 47-53) ; C. J. May 16, 1621 ; Proc. and Debates, 1620-21, April 30, 1621 (ii, 360-363). The patentees, on their part, secured a single and somewhat suspicious testimonial. S. P. D. April 15, 1621. ^ C. J. April 20, May 6, 1614; May 16, 1621 ; April 19, May i, 1624. 5 Howell, who was employed by Mansell as his foreign agent for the works at Winchester House, from 1618 to 1621, wrote that " Sir Robert Mansell . . . hath melted vast sums of money in the glass business, — a business more fit for a mer- chant than a courtier . . . My father fears that this glass employment will be too brittle a foundation for me to build a fortune upon . . . and hath advised me to hearken after some other condition." Ho-Elianae, p. 103 in ed. of 1890. * Hallen, Scottish Antiquary, April, 1893, notes from the parish register of All Saints, Newcastle, February u, 1618: " Edward Henzey, servant to Sir Robert Man- sell," which approximately fixes the date of the beginning of the Newcastle work. After this date, the names of Henzey, Tyzack, and Tittory are frequently found there. 5 S. P. D. April ? 1624 (clxii, 63). " This is confirmed by continental evidence. See H. Schuermans, Verreries h la Venetienne. Let. ii, p. 37 1 (quoted by Hartshome, p. 38). THE GLASS PATENTS 75 the cost of production had not increased. They showed that the shipping maintained by Mansell was insignificant. Their answer with regard to the saving of fuel, which was Mansell' s strong argu- ment, is interesting, for it followed a Hne of reasoning that was rare in its day. After explaining that the glass furnaces had not been accustomed to employ heavy timber, but only Ught Kmbs and branches of trees, they contended that the danger of demolish- ing forests could not really be a serious one, because it had been found in experience that the profits in the glass industry were too low to admit of a successful prosecution of any undertaking when the expense of fuel was high; and they insisted that the price of fuel would everywhere reach this prohibitive point long before the forests were jeopardized. They represented that it was, in fact, economic necessity which compelled them to take up the use of coal as fuel, and that they had resorted successfully to this method of preparation before any patent was granted for the use of coal, and before the proclamation forbidding the use of wood. They corrected a statement made by Mansell to the effect that Bungar had made a competitive bid for a patent. What Bungar and others had offered to do was to pay the king a rent of ;£iooo, for permis- sion to themselves and to all others to manufacture without re- straint, and to sell at two shilhngs per pound less than Mansell's prices.^ The agitation in the previous Parhament, 162 1, had had an un- expected effect. Mansell was at the time abroad in the naval service, and this was made an excuse for insisting upon a suspension of the proceedings against his patent.^ Mansell forwarded a petition relative to his patent, which was referred to a committee, which reported that as Mansell was "a faithful servant of the king"' his patent should be upheld notwithstanding that it was complained ' S. P. D. April 16, 1624. 2 S. p. D. and C. R. June 18, 1621. 8 " Mansell, who was an indifferent seaman and an incapable and dishonest administrator, and whose only claim to the place was his favor with Nottingham, re- mained in office till 1618, and the greater portion of this paper is practically a record of his unfitness for his important charge." — Oppenheim, Royal Navy under James /, English Historical Review, July 1892, p. 416. The office referred to was that of treasurer of the royal navy. In 1618 Mansell sold this office and succeeded to that of vice-admiral. See Diet. Nat. Biog. ^6 ENGLISH PATENTS OF MONOPOLY of as a grievance in Parliament. At the suggestion of the referees the Privy Council recommended a new patent for Mansell, giving him a monopoly of manufacture for a term of fifteen years, but allowing importation upon payment of a duty, out of which the king might recompense Mansell " according to his wisdom." * A patent was granted on these terms, ^ and the monopoly by this means was extended to 1638. But as a matter of fact it was again prolonged before it had expired, by force of an indenture in 1634, which extended it for another term of twenty-one years. ^ Although the unpopularity of this monopoly was evident from the course of the debates of 1624, it was exempted, probably to save the bill, from the act as finally passed.* The concession was very likely due to Coke's influence. As lord chief -justice he had been a referee in the controversy over Zouch's patent ^ in 16 13-14, and more than any other person he had been responsible for the revocation in Zouch's interest of the previous patents and for the compensation allowed therefor." Now, however, he appeared as a strong opponent of this monopoly, and he showed his dislike for the patent in 162 1 and 1624. He objected particularly to the length of the term of privilege, and with good reason. Nevertheless, as chairman of the Committee of Grievances he reported in favor of allowing the patent of 1623 to continue for the rest of its term, "but not to be renewed."' This recommendation was adopted. The exception, however, was carefully worded so as to lend no new support to the patent. The jurisdiction of the common law courts was not precluded, and was in fact invited by the express wording of the statute: "The said letters patent . . . shall be and remain of the like force and effect, and as free from the declarations, provisions, penalties, and for- feitures before mentioned as if this act had never been had nor made and not otherwise." Bungar, persistent as ever, now pro- ceeded to test the validity of the glass patent under the act. He began to infringe upon Mansell's patent, and prepared to insti- tute a suit at law for avoiding the monopoly. Thereupon the ever- watchful Privy Council intervened and declared that the grant to ' C. R. October 12, 1622 ; February 5, 1623. ' Pat. 21 Jac. I (May 22, 1624); Appendix Y. ' See Appendix Z. * 21 Jac. I, c. 3, sec. 13. See Appendix A. ' C. R. November 14, 1613. « S. P. D. November 17, 1613. ' C. J. May 16, 1621 J April ig, May 1, 1624. THE GLASS PATENTS T7 Mansell was "agreeable to the late statute of monopolies." Bungar was told that he might institute his suit, but in the mean while he was not to encroach upon Mansell's rights. A few months later the Council withdrew the right of trial at law, evidently fearing the outcome. "The Lords declare that the patent shall stand. . . . They think it of dangerous consequence and far trenching upon the prerogative that patents granted on just grounds and of long continuance should be referred to the strict trial of common law, wherefore they order that all proceedings at law be stayed." ^ The patent was restored to very much the same position as before 1623, by an order in Council ' in 1630, which prohibited the importation of crystal glass except from Venice, upon the representation of Mansell that his undertaking was endangered by certain industries which had only just begun operations upon the continent. In 1635 Mansell wrote that he had sunk ;^3o,ooo in the glass industry, and that before he was able to realize any return upon his investments his workmen were enticed into Scotland, and he was obhged to buy up the Scottish industry at £250 per annum in order to recover his workmen. But upon their return they made such poor glass that he had to introduce a whole company from Mantua. Then his clerk ran away and encouraged a "ruinous" importation of drinking-glasses from France, till the Privy Council intervened. Since then he had made looking-glasses and spectacle- glasses at great cost, but had not raised prices, while he had made the price of window-glass more certain and moderate; and now his men were again enticed away into Scotland.^ A few years later the famiUar complaints were presented to the Privy Council, re- presenting the dearness, badness, and scarcity of glass. This phe- nomenon was not unusual, and would not be worth noting again but for the action of the Privy Council, which well illustrates the care which it took to admonish patentees of their obligations, while at the same time it was reluctant to acknowledge to others that any wrong had been done. In this case the Lords recorded that they had "found by their own experience that glass was not so' fair, so clear, nor so strong as the same was wont to be," and they informed Mansell accordingly. At the same time they warned the petitioners > C. R. June 19, 1626. ' S. P. D. December 6, 1626. ' C. R. June 25, 1630. * S. P. D. January 28, 1635. 78 ENGLISH PATENTS OF MONOPOLY that their complaints were "merely clamorous and causeless," and that if they hereafter troubled the board they would be imprisoned.* After the Scottish invasion of Newcastle, Mansell wrote his last appeal to the government. He detailed the condition of the New- castle works "for window- glass." He said that he had three fur- naces fully manned and at work when the Scots invaded Newcastle and dismantled his plant and wares to the value of ;^i9,ooo. He had still to pay "dead wages" in order to keep his workmen. The glass work in London depended upon Newcastle for coal. If this closed down the workmen would return abroad. He was ;£ioso in arrears of rent for the year, and "forbears to estimate" the arrears of wages. He implored Secretary Windebank to obtain xeHef for him, as under present conditions he was able neither to discharge his debts nor to supply the Idngdom with glass. ^ Before he had had time to restore his works, his monopoly suf- fered its final blow. In 1641 and 1642 Mansell' s patent again came before Parliament. Mansell appealed to the House of Lords against those who infringed his patent and he was there regularly and con- sistently supported.^ The opponents of the patent, on the other hand, appealed to the House of Commons with complete success. An order was passed for the restoration of certain glass which the patentee had seized with the sanction of the Lords, and Mansell was ordered to attend at the House.* Mansell then petitioned the House of Commons, where it was ordered that the patent should be submitted to the investigation of the Committee of Grievances.^ Finally, it was ordered that the patent should be dehvered up to the clerk of the House, and this appears to have abruptly terminated the monopoly." Mansell was not discouraged by his reverses and he restored his works notwithstanding his loss of the exclusive privilege of manufacture.' Others were prompt ' C. R. and S. P. D. December 15, 1637; January 12, 1638. 2 S. P. D. September 15, 1640. ' Hist. MSS. Com. Rept.iv, House of Lords MSS. Cal. May 13, June 16, July 21, 30, 1641; V, March 24, May 16, 1642. * C. J. April 12, 1642. * C. J. April 15, 1642. • C. J. May 30, 1642. ' The following facts relating to the Newcastle industries are derived from quo- tations from the Common Council Order Books, inserted in Brand's History of Newcastle (1789), ii, pp. 42-47. THE GLASS PATENTS 79 in taking advantage of the opportunity, and, notwithstanding the Civil War, the glass industry made progress at Newcastle.^ By 1646 Mansell had at least one rival there, who seems to have en- joyed the preference of the local authorities. The Corporation continued throughout the century to let out the leases to two plants, known respectively as "The New" and "The Old," or "The Eastern" and "The Western" glasshouses. Mansell died in 1653,^ and shortly afterward the two plants came under identical manage- ment. The leases were not apparently held directly by the Henzeys and Tyzacks until 1679, but they were probably the real managers and superintendents, if not the actual undertakers, throughout the whole Commonwealth period. The industry spread to other places than Newcastle,' and a writer of the Restoration said that the diversification of the glass industry was the work of the preceding twenty years,* and he either knew of no changes before the Civil War or else thought the progress before that time was inconsiderable in comparison with the advance during and after the war. At the end of the seventeenth century there were from twenty to thirty plants, out of a total of about ninety, which were devoted to the production of the finer grades of glass; ^ but the greater part of these had sprung up after the Restoration. ° In the somewhat comphcated relations of the crown with the glass-makers and of the glass-makers with each other, a few facts require special emphasis. The first patent was strictly legitimate, but the selection of the recipients was unfortunate, for they proved to be helpless without skilled workmen. Such workmen were indeed wilhng to serve under them, but were unwilhng to carry out the condition of the patent that native-born Englishmen should be apprenticed in their art. The patent was an aid in the industry for less than a year, and after that, as far as it had any influence, it ' See also, Gray's Chorographia, Richardson's reprint, p. 29. 2 The Dictionary of National Biography gives 1656 as the date of his death, but Brand's quotation from the C. C. Order Books shows that it was 1653. ' Dudley, Metallum Martis, shows that glass was being made at Bristol in 1665 (p. 65 in 1858 ed.). * C. Merret, editor and translator of A. Neri's Art of Glass, 1662, Preface. 5 John Houghton (editor), Collection for Improvement of Husbandry and Trade, May 15, 1696. ° Houghton, op. cit. January 29, 1684. 8o ENGLISH PATENTS OF MONOPOLY was a handicap. The single contribution made by the patent was in opening negotiation with certain members of the glass-making families of Normandy and Lorraine. But the English branches of these families never owed anything to official monopoly. They did not begin their operations until the patent was practically dead. They estabhshed their position by competition in the markets, and by that monopoly only which rigid secrecy gave them. It is apparent that their methods were never learned by Englishmen before the Civil War. The pubhcity which even then was regarded as one of the most essential requisites of the patent system was thus entirely wanting. That the negotiations were opened by patentees was an incident of little significance, for the conditions at home and abroad being as they were, it was not important how the invitation was extended. On the terms of secrecy, many stood ready to undertake the work in England. On the terms of the patent, none were ready. The patent to Versehni in 1574 was the first of a connected series of monopohes which continued unin- terruptedly till 1642. During this period of about seventy years, a privilege originally granted only for Venice glasses was gradually extended in its scope until it embraced the entire glass industry of the British Isles. The grant of 1574, hke that of 1567, was in itself quite unobjectionable, but it failed of its object, while the subsequent renewals and extensions under Verselini's successors, Bowes, Zouch, and Mansell, could be justified upon no rational grounds of law or pubhc expediency. From 1592 onward every glass patent was parasitic, being in no instance granted in reward of invention. Royal favorites enjoyed the fruits of others' achieve- ments. Every advance that was made, whether in the fashion of glass or in the method of making it, came from men who knew the monopoly system only as a device to compel them to share with others the fruits of their efforts. In 1640, as in 1570, the leaders of the industry were the Bungars, who had consistently opposed the patentees, and the Henzeys, Tyzacks, and Tittorys, who had submitted to Mansell only under pressure and under the fear of being otherwise altogether excluded from the industry. The fact that the latter were serving under Mansell constituted his only legitimate claim to monopoly. If they had been dependent upon him for their capital, a monopoly for them, in his name, might THE GLASS PATENTS 8 1 have been an encouragement, though it would have been no help to them, their methods being secret, unless others had been unjustly excluded from the market. But, as a matter of fact, they were not in need of capital. They had migrated for religious, not for pecu- niary reasons; and until they were dispossessed in 1614, they had depended upon no one for their capital. Mansell apparently did contribute considerable capital after that date. But it should be remembered that a large proportion of this was water, for at least three patents were bought up which would have possessed no value if markets had been open to all. And Mansell had bought out his own partners upon the basis of the speculative value of the mcfnopoly. Finally, much of his wasted expenditure was due to his business methods and to his lack of acquaintance with the industry which he controlled. CHAPTER VII THE ROYAL ALUM WORKS Several attempts were made to establish alum monopolies in the reign of Ehzabeth, but each of the attempts was short-Uved. An alchemical project for the use of alum and copperas in the trans- mutation of iron into copper included the queen and Lord Burghley among its active promoters.^ The most important patent ^ was given to de Vos, and this was assigned to the Earl of Mountjoy, who secured a renewal and a confirmatory act of Parhament.' His field of operations was the west shore of the Isle of Wight, called Alum Bay. He was unfortunate from the outset, and apparently had no business capacity. Nevertheless he asserted hopefully * that though his subordinates had defrauded him, he would soon make a handsome profit, sufficient to pay his debts, from the sale of alum and copperas at four fifths of its present price. This, he added, would be "to the annoyance of the pope," who was the chief pro- vider of alum in Europe. But he was soon in a hopeless financial position, and never did much with his patent. In 1593 the Earl of Huntington sought to revive Mountjoy's privilege,^ but ap- parently met with no encouragement. The chief interest in connection with the alum enterprise centres about the attempt to build it up as a great government monopoly. The efforts in this direction began early in the reign of James I. They can furnish interesting illustrations to any one who beheves in the unfitness of government to administer industrial under- takings. But the whole story of the alum monopoly is such a con- tinuously dismal one that it would not be fair to Judge from it what a reasonably business-hke government could have accom- ' Patent February 14, 1575. See Strype's Life of Smith, ed. 1820, p. 100. 2 Patent June, 1565. « 8 Eliz. c. 21. < " Lord Mountjoy's Treatise," 1566 ? S. P. D. Add. xiii, 49 (l). ' S. P. D. March, 1593, ccxliv, 109. THE ROYAL ALUM WORKS 83 plished. The alum monopoly was foredoomed to failure from the outset by fatal weaknesses of administration. The king was bent on exploitation, the farmers upon plunder, and the ministers were inefScient, while the honesty of many is doubtful. The enterprise was supported by the usual protestations of lofty benevolence and solicitude for the welfare of the subjects and of the commonwealth in general. But in this case fair words cloaked more hypocrisy than usual. To compensate for the enormous losses involved in actual outlay, and for direct loss to producers and consumers whose freedom of selling and buying was restrained,' it is difficult to see how sufficient good can have resulted to any one save a few dishonest farmers and contractors. As an encouragement to do- mestic production, the project was a failure, and other domestic interests suffered by it. The clothworkers were forced to take an inferior article at an enhanced price. Their only rehef was illicit importation, which seems to have been considerable ^ in amount. As a revenue measure the project brought a severe though not unmerited punishment. The new patent was the result of the discovery of alum deposits, apparently in abundance, in Yorkshire, brought to pubhc atten- tion ' by Sir Thomas Challoner. Lord Sheffield's interest at court procured the grant ^ in 1607, by representing ^ " how necessary alum was for cloth and leather, how much the pope would suffer, that ;£40,ooo would be saved in money and commodities an- nually, that many hundreds would be set on work, clothed, fed, and receive rehgious and other instruction, and that ships and mariners would be maintained to carry coal, urine, alum, etc." The original patentees were Sheffield, Challoner, Sir David Fowles, and Mr. (afterward Sir) John Bourchier. These projectors then arranged to procure capital from several London merchants, who were to erect the necessary buildings, and were to be reimbursed "with consideration for forbearance" before the projectors should receive any profit. Though the building work progressed and the crown extended the period of grace, the business had " many rubs and stops at the beginning." The patentees and their workmen were 1 Malynes, Lex Mercatoria, ed. 1686, pp. i88-i8g. "^ See below, pages 85, loi. ^ Atherton had begun working in 1604. * Pat. 4 Jac. I, pt. 20 (January 3, 1607). ^ Lansd. 152, fol. 49. 84 ENGLISH PATENTS OF MONOPOLY inexperienced, and were, moreover, the victims of pretended ex- perts; and in a short time ;£2o,ooo or ^jP^ooo were lost without tangible result.^ Gerard Malynes wrote ^ to the ministers, offering "to make alum cheaper and six times better in other parts of the kingdom." But £10,000 more was expended in importing workmen from the German and papal alum works. Other domestic supply being suppressed, and importation also prohibited,' the new, ex- travagantly managed enterprise enjoyed a close monopoly, and prices naturally reached a high point. The prohibition of importa- tion was not proclaimed, however, until a pretense had been made of careful investigation, and information was received from the city of London as to prices for the past seven years.' Moreover, two commissioners were sent down to the works to investigate the capacity of the plant. They reported favorably, and one of them, Ingram, who continued his active connection with the industry till the end of the reign, declared that the London dyers, to whom some of the alum was given, also approved it, "only they complained of the grossness of it, alleging that it wanted some time to lie and dry." Whereupon the lord treasurer "was well satisfied and thought it a good business to be taken into the king's hands." ^ The condition of the enterprise at this time does not seem to offer much explanation of the eagerness to make the industry a direct concern of the crown. The original projectors and the merchants made a show of reluctance to part with their interests, but as soon as favorable terms were offered, they readily yielded to the bargain, which reheved them of the management of a nearly hopeless con- cern, and at the same time promised them recompense for all the sums which they had expended. The merchants, who in modem parlance would be called bond or debenture-holders, resigned their interest for an annuity of £6044 for twenty-six years, while the projectors, or shareholders, compounded for an annual rent of ;£6ooo, to begin after seven years." To this another £1000 was added for preachers at the works. Sir John Bourchier and Mr. William Turner, who had been a subcontractor under the private > Lansd. 152, fol. 49. 2 Lansd. 152, fol. 71 (73), August 29, 1609. ' B. M. Proc. Coll. June 19, 1609. ' Rep. xxviii, fol. 320b. January 10, 1609; Rem. ii, 340, January 19, 1609. ' Lansd. 152, fol. 49. • Indenture, May 6, 1609. Patent Rolls. THE ROYAL ALUM WORKS 85 management, proposed to farm the business at a fixed rent; and upon a favorable report ' by Ingram, it was leased to them for ;£sooo the first year, £2000 the second, and ;^iooo in five following years, then subsequently ;g90oo.^ The farmers were to pay the annuities and erect new buildings, so that the output should equal 2000 tons annually. An agreement was made that either party to the bargain might cancel it at the end of the first year.^ Bourchier and Turner were still enthusiastic and may really have thought that they could carry out the bargain, especially as there was still hope that the further improvement of the works which was contemplated might have the desired result. But within a year, and after the farmers had been allowed an abatement of their rent on account of certain licensed imports, they sought lenient treatment, as the works were not prospering. They complained of smuggling, of infringement of patent, of the necessity of selKng at a loss during the session of Parhament, "to avoid their complaint, which my lord treasurer approved of," and of the need of new buildings.* They begged to be relieved of the whole business, not doubting that there are others who "have a far better conceit thereof than we have who have adventured in it." They objected especially to the burden of ;£6ooo annually to "the patentees that never laid out penny." But the lord treasurer "was very sharp with them . . . and (said) that he would take order that his Majesty should have his due of them, if all the estates they had in the world would yield it." ^ The con- fidence of those interested in the work was, however, greater than their confidence in the crown, and before the end of the year 161 1, the lord treasurer received a request that Lord Shefiield's annuity " may be made payable out of the Alum rather than the Exchequer," as its sale value would then rise by £300 or ;£400.° But this con- fidence did not survive the death, in 1612, of the lord treasurer, who was boldly accused, with Turner and Ingram, of fraud in con- nection with the alum business.' During the year 161 2, the alum business was in dire confusion. 1 May 6, 1609. GuUdhall Tracts, Beta, no. 60. 2 Lansd. 152, fol. 49. 3 S. P. D. December, 1609, 1, 64; Docq. October, 1609; Patent April 20, 1610. < Lansd. 152, fols. 59, 67 (69), 63 (65) ; Titus, B, v, fol. 342. ' Lansd. 152, fol. 49. • S. P. D. November, i6ii, Ixvii, 37. ' S. P. D. 161 3, bcxv, 68. 86 ENGLISH PATENTS OF MONOPOLY On the 14th of March, Richard Bowlder, who had been instrumental in raising a loan through his correspondents in Middleburgh, and Thomas Jones, a partner with Turner and Bourchier, wrote to one of the Council asking that the works might be sustained and them- selves reheved. Their "charges" were too heavy, and they were £4000 in arrears of "rent" to the king, and needed new build- ings. They asked special consideration for the next five years, so that the "profits arising in that time by the works may be allowed in satisfaction of the stock already disbursed, and all future profit to remain to the king." * On the nth of May, Turner wrote in des- peration to Sir JuKus Caesar, chancellor of the Exchequer. He had written to the lord treasurer an account of the critical state of the alum business, but could get no answer. He had been entreated by Cope, Bourchier, and Ingram to give his assistance, and they had given him great promises of the lord treasurer's favor, which pro- mises had proved to be "all wind." He was informed that most of the work-people had already left, which must result in crippling the work. The year was so far spent that it was impossible to pro- vide new houses or repair the old ones. He urged that it would be rashness to undertake to restore the business without guarantee of adequate support. He concluded: "Unless you take some present course, it is utterly overthrown. . . . There is no other way to preserve the king's honor and profit but to give all the grace and assistance to it you can, and not to lay any burden upon it before it be made a profitable work able to yield 2000 tons of alum yearly, and then no doubt but that it will yield a good rent. Every day is so precious that the loss therein cannot be regained." ^ On the 20th of May, "Bowlder and Company" (or the Alum Company) "failed and became insolvent," four days before the death of the lord treasurer. Among other creditors was their Middle- burgh agent, to whom they owed £19,140. On the 31st of May the bankrupts procured from the king a general "protection" as joint co-partners in the alum business, and subsequently the pro- tection was several times renewed.^ On the nth of June they "humbly desire that the privileges granted by patent may be hereafter punctually maintained ... in consideration whereof they do offer to pay unto his Majesty for the first seven years from 1 Lansd. 152, fol. 89. ' Lansd. 153, fol. 103. ' Guildhall, Beta, no. 60, fol. loi. THE ROYAL ALUM WORKS 87 midsummer next ;^iooo per annum, and for the residue of the time remaining in the patent ;i£40oo per annum. . . . Over and above this rent they will covenant to discharge his Majesty from the annuities in present payable to the first undertakers, -fjiooo; and in future, annuities to the patentees, £7000 . . . which they humbly desire may be accepted, being the utmost values which the work may afford. Neither can these payments be raised without great hazard, by further disbursements than already is issued, amounting to above ;^4o,ooo." ' A rival offer ^ was made a few days later, and here the proposals which the farmers had just made were tabulated: £44,000 S4,ooo 1st 4 years £11,000 Rent to the king £1,000 Debts (not mentioned by the farmers) £4,000 Annuities to the undertakers 6,000 Next 3 years 18,000 Rent 1,000 Debts 4,000 Annuities 6,000 Patentees 7,000 Remaining 18 years 21,000 Rent 4,000 Debts 4,000 Annuities 6,000 Patentees 7,000 378,000 476,000 The rival bidder, probably Sir Walter Cope, offered to buy all these interests with ;£i8o,ooo, to be provided by the king (;^i8,ooo a year for ten years), thus yielding a "clear gain" to the crown of ;£2 96,000. This proposal shows at what a low rate the creditors were presumed to value their assets due from the Alum Company. The Lords Commissioners, successors to Lord Treasurer Salisbury, were reluctant to take the works into the king's hands, but were seriously embarrassed, since the failure of the enterprise after so much had been done would affect the honor of the king; more- over, in default of the farmers, the king would be indebted to the annuitors.' On the 20th of July, Bourchier and Turner each de- livered a statement of the financial situation. Bourchier represented that the plant could produce 700 tons per annum, which at {^21 would yield £16,100. The cost of making would be ;^7oo and the > Lansd. 152, fol. 107. ' Lansd. 152, fol. 85. ' Lansd. 152, fol. 49. 88 ENGLISH PATENTS OF MONOPOLY fixed charges would bring the cost to £15,144, leaving £956 for two years to the farmers. In the next two years the gain would be ^£5956, on account of the increased efficiency of the plant. But after four years, their interest charges would be heavier, so that they must lose ;£io44 for three years and at the end of seven years £4044 annually.* Turner's statement ^ was of the past trans- actions of the farmers, which gave the following rather startling summary: — Received from Gisborough, at London, 1936 tons alum, 1 746 sold at £23 £40,158 190 exported at £15 2,850 Sale of coal from coal works in the country 1,000 To balance the account 36,732 80,740 80,740 On the 23d of July the farmers signed a Treasury minute ^ at York House, binding themselves to carry on the work till a new adjustment could be reached, and it was agreed that some merchants should be sent to inspect the works. Mr. Robert Johnson and three others were accordingly sent, and on the 28th of August they reported * that there were six buildings, aU erected before May, 1609, except part of one. The normal cost of one building per year, at maximum output, they found to be: — Money sent to Gisborough exchange from thence £42,216 Sir Wm. Clavell's work 2,039 Rent to the king 5,000 Annuities by contract 15,010 Materials and tools 16,474 Coal, 1000 chaldrons @ 13s. 4d. "laid at the work" £666 13s. 4d. Urine, 10 tons weekly, 500 per annum @ 12s. 300 Wages, 60 men @ 8d. per diem 600 Carts, 18 cars and drivers, 6 months @ rod. pei • diem 100 Wood 75 Lead 36 Wrought iron 96 Brick 40 Coopers, smiths, carpenters, wages & materials 66 13 4 Chief workman & his servant 60 Transport to seaboard, 166 tons @ 6s. 6d. 53 19 Transport to London @ 12s. 99 12 For one house £ 2, 193 17s. 8d. For six 13, .163 6 Total charges less certain deductions r2, .563 6 » Lansd. 152, fol. 87. ' Lansd. 152. fols. 97,98. ' Lansd. 152,101.99. * Lansd. 152, fol. 109. THE ROYAL ALUM WORKS 89 The normal output at maximum efficiency was found to be 166 tons per annum each, or 1000 tons @ 24^ = £24,000 Extraordinary charges since May, 1609: Finishing a house £2,000 Repairing 300 New pits and cisterns 100 Experiments 500 By reason of wet seasons 1,5°° "and many other casualties" [ ] 4,400 They found defective and rapidly decaying furnaces; coal and wood not laid in; in some houses 500 workmen and colliers unpaid for three or four months and more, threatening to desert the work upon which eight hundred families depended. They stated that ";^6ooo would not set the works aright." The outcome of Johnson's investigation was that he with Ingram and Sir Walter Cope resolved to take the control of the works into their own hands. To this end they made a proposal on the 24th of September, which was accepted with little modification by the Treasury Commissioners on the 26th of February, 1613.' The plan adopted was not substantially different from that proposed on the 12th of July, 161 2, by Cope, but which at that time Ingram stated both he and Sir JuKus Caesar opposed,^ as they saw the peril of taking the work out of the hands of the farmers and restoring it to the king. But within a few months Ingram joined in the petition, and Ingram, Johnson, and Cope were successful. The new scheme, as a matter of fact, provided ' that they should turn over the works, free of incumbrance, to the king at the end of four years. They did not do so, but continued to operate the works, taking the place of the farmers, whom they promised to recompense for their outlay, along with the merchants and promoters. The new adjustment did not mend matters. The farmers {i. e., the Alum Company) com- plained that the new contractors were not meeting the obHgations which they had agreed to assume; * and the creditors, one hundred and eighty persons, to whom the alum company owed upwards of ;£44,ooo, besieged the ministers for permission to sue for recovery of the debts; and the annuitors petitioned for an order for the 1 Lansd. 152, fol. 91 ; Titus B, v, fols. 337b, 338, 342. 2 Lansd. 152, fol. 49. ' Lansd. 152, fol. 9S. * S. P. D. June, 1613, Ixxiv, 19, 20, 21. 90 ENGLISH PATENTS OF MONOPOLY payment of their promised incomes. The king shielded the Alum Company by "protections," as long as he could and then gave orders to the Lords Commissioners for a new adjustment. The floating debts were scaled down to ;^3o,ooo, and in consideration for undertaking to meet these, and also upon the report of the depleted condition of the works, the new contractors seem to have been granted a modification of their contract.^ But in 1614 protec- tion had to be granted again to Bourchier and Turner, "the alum works being not yet settled." ^ Meanwhile the works had formally passed into the king's hands, ^ and the new contractors became managers for the crown. They went down to the alum works provided with money from the king, with which, according to their own statement, they paid heavy arrears of wages, made extensive repairs, and re-stocked the works with provisions and materials. Then they let the works on a short lease to the most experienced persons they could find, stipulating for a fixed price for the alum. After that Ingram and Johnson claimed to have made considerable advances out of their private purses. Their proceedings were ap- proved by the Treasury Commissioners,^ but this solution proved as disastrous as the other had been. Johnson submitted an itemized statement,^ showing that the king had disbursed, while the works were in his own hands, £72,760," including the debts of the Alum Company, now freed from insolvency; and that the immediate output of the works had resulted in loss rather than gain. The money advanced by the king was absorbed by the lessees without even keeping up the repairs on the works or paying the work- men's wages, according to the claim which Ingram afterward made. Suffolk, the new lord treasurer, determined in 161 5 to farm the work once more, in order to stop the king's unprofitable disburse- ments; and he was obhged to accept the bid ' of Ingram, Johnson, 1 Lansd. 152, fol. 49. ^ Sign Manual, iv, no. 71. 3 Docq. April, 1613. ' Lansd. 152, fol. 49. ' Lansd. 152, fol. 53. • Various estimates of the losses of the king in this business range from ;£'65,650 (Somers, Tracts, 1619, ii, pp. 372, 380) to ^120,000 (Hist. MSS. Com. Rept. House of Lords Calendar, May 27, 1663, vii, 172). Malynes (Lex Mercatoria, p. 189 in ed. 1686) wrote in 1622 : " His Majesty hath been pleased to enter into the said works and laid out so many thousand pounds as is not fitting to be expressed." ' Lansd. 152, fol. 65 (67). THE ROYAL ALUM WORKS 9 1 Freeman, and Lowe, who received a grant for twenty-one years, with a subsidy of ;£io,ooo in cash, agreeing to make 1800 tons yearly at £10 per ton. Simultaneously, a grant was passed to other parties conferring the office of receiving, transporting, and selling the alum produced by the new farmers.^ The king's only income from these two transactions was to be the difference between the ultimate market price and the {^\o per ton at which his agents were to buy, and the agents were to receive from the king a "pension" of ^^(id per annum. The farmers, Ingram, Johnson, Lowe, and Freeman, did not engage to reheve the king of the annual obhgations to undertakers and patentees. But even under these conditions they did not prosper. Out of the ;^io,ooo subsidy, 8000 was exhausted upon repairs and accrued wages and the best subcontract that could then be made took the remaining ;22ooo as a bonus to two makers. Sir John Brooke and Thomas RusseU, who then agreed to produce 1800 tons annually at £9 per ton. Ingram claimed that the slight margin of profit left to him and his associates was soon absorbed by other emergency expenses.^ Ingram's reputation for honesty does not seem to have been very flattering. His con- tinued connection with the alum business was ascribed at the time to the anxiety to remove him from the court. Chamberlain, the court gossip, wrote ^ to Carleton that Ingram had been made cof- ferer of the king's Household, but that the officers of the Green Cloth and the Black Guard had declared that they "would rather be hung than have such a scandalous fellow over them." Later, he wrote again ' that, "Ingram delays leaving, his place at court; he is to go to Yorkshire on the alum business; his conduct is much canvassed." Finally he wrote ^ that Ingram had with much diffi- culty been ejected from the court. Complaints of subsequent dishonest dealings at the works then began to come in ' to the ministers, until a commission was appointed ' to inquire into the alleged frauds. The inquiry dragged on ' from 1616 to 1619, and brought to Hght a considerable amount of infor- 1 S. P. D. July, 1615, Ixxxi, 13, 14; Sign Manual, v, 29. 2 Lansd. 152, fols. 49 ff. ' S. P. D. March i, 1615. < S. P. D. April 7, 161 5. * S. P. D. July 13, 1615. ' S. P. D. December I, 1615; March, 1616, Ixxxvi, 116. ' Sign Manual, vi, no. 10, March, 1616. 8 S. P. D. March, 1616, Ixxxvi, 117 ; May i, 1619. 92 ENGLISH PATENTS OF MONOPOLY mation damaging to many of the parties concerned in the business, but found no satisfactory solution for the perplexing state of afEairs. Ingram asserted that his last efforts would have been crowned with success but for an accident which could not have been foreseen, and he made a plea for further indulgence. But Lowe submitted a petition ^ to the commissioners confirming the charges which had already been made against the new farmers. Ingram and Johnson, he said, had persuaded him, an inexperienced man, to enter into a partnership with them and with Martin Freeman. Lowe's charges were especially directed against Johnson, who had promised to take a fourth part and manage the enterprise, but who then with- drew upon the pretext that it was not proper for him, in his official position, to be openly connected with the work, " and that he could help better outside the society." He took advantage of Lowe's ignorance and drove a hard bargain with him. Johnson continued to guide the industry and obtained various new sums from the king. Lowe was induced to sink ;,£20,ooo and was now in despair, since he was unable to produce the amount contracted for. He implored a loan of ;£5ooo from the king, " and if he is successful and brings income to his Majesty" prays that he "may be reimbursed as many others have been in this business." As a result of the inquiry, numerous readjustments ^ were made in the relations of the various interested parties to each other, but nothing could be done to remove the real difficulties. Meanwhile, in the course of a protracted chancery suit, the Middleburgh agent of the alum company was still strugghng to obtain justice, which was delayed by various legal tricks.^ At this time also the lord treasurer was being tried in the Star Chamber for fraud and corruption in the alum business and other affairs.^ Ingram still retained his intimate connection with the work, in spite of all opposition. If he had been an honest man, it is probable that he would have been eager to withdraw. But he held on to the seemingly hopeless undertaking, making the only profits that were being cleared by any one. His fall from favor was finally due to ' Lansd. 152, fol. 55. ' Sign Manual, x, no. 2, March, 1619; xi, no. 9, November 4, 1619; x, no. 70, July 25, 1619; Grant Bk. pp. 273, 277. ' Guildhall, Beta, no. 60. See above, page 86. * S. P. D. October 30, November 13, 1619. THE ROYAL ALUM WORKS 93 a project which succeeded in interesting more powerful courtiers than his own patrons. The plan originated with Sir John Bourchier, who was freed from habiUty for arrears of debt due to the crown since 1611 in the alum business, "it being found on examination that he ought in equity to be freed therefrom." * This indulgence made him ambitious for a new speculation. In the next year he was ready with a proposition which the king committed to investigation, "the works being supposed capable of yielding profit to his Maj- esty." ^ His plan was to become the king's farmer for alum and for soap.' The soap monopoly, destined to become very important in the following reign, was just beginning to be considered at this time; and its possibiUties were shrewdly foreseen by Bourchier, who apparently thought it a wise policy to combine with this un- happy undertaking one with prospects of good success. The king had tried in vain to withdraw from his alum business, but it always came back to his hands. If the king could not be rid of it, why not redeem it, or conceal its miserable plight by consolidating it with a young and healthy project? In December, Bourchier sub- mitted a statement * of the benefit the king would receive by work- ing the alum and soap business on his own account, and asked that the alum works should be transferred to him from Ingram, and that the soap scheme should be further considered. He offered ^ to assume responsibility for an annuity of ;^2ooo which had been promised to Secretary Conway out of the alum profits. Bourchier seems to have felt the importance of Conway's influence, for shortly afterward he wrote to Conway that he had intended to offer ;^io,ooo to the king for the farm of the two monopolies, but now proposed to pay the king ;£6ooo per annum, and to increase Conway's interest. He claimed that the king would gain ;£20,ooo by a tax of £2 per ton on soap, and might keep a diamond (Sir Paul Pindar's) worth £35,000.° Fully ;£8o,ooo would be necessary, but the king's help ' S. P. D. June 18, 1622. ^ S. P. D. July 12, 1623. ' S. P. D. August 13, 1623. * S. P. D. December, 1623, civ, 25. ' S. P. D. December, 1623, civ, 40. ' When Buckingham went abroad with Prince Charles, he took Sir Paul Pindar's great diamonds, promising to " talk with him about paying for them." (S. P. D. February 27, 1623.) James coveted the largest diamond, valued at ;^35,ooo. Later, Charles " purchased " it for ;^i8,ooo to be paid out of the profits of the alum works. S. P. D. July 20, 1625. 94 ENGLISH PATENTS OF MONOPOLY would not be needed. Sir Arthur Ingram was to be recompensed for the loss of the alum works.* Bourchier soon after tried a less expensive way of disposing of Ingram. Instead of buying him out, Bourchier and others brought charges ^ against Ingram for misappropriation of funds. Ingram, it was claimed, had wrongfully gained £53,000 in seven years, had not disbursed funds entrusted to him for the works, had not per- formed his covenants, and had abused his work-people. A com- mission ' of investigation was accordingly constituted. In the in- terval before the Exchequer Commission began its investigation, Bourchier renewed his offers * of money to Conway, having already suggested to him that he might make ;£30oo per year by securing the monopoly of exporting soap.^ Conway wrote ° on behalf of Bourchier to the chancellor of the Exchequer, before whom the hearings were held. Shortly afterwards Bourchier wrote ' to Con- way, claiming to have proved his charges against Ingram, "who says he will sell all his land rather than give up the works." Bour- chier, however, did not in the end obtain the grant which he sought. He seems to have quarreled with his partners. Turner made a rival bid, and Bourchier wrote to Conway offering ;£iooo more than any bid Turner might make.* It was probably intended that Bourchier should have the grant, for Conway procured a warrant for a grant to himself of ;^2ooo out of the profits of the alum and soap works? "in compensation for his great trouble about them." ' But the king died before Bourchier received the lease, and nothing more is heard of the scheme to combine the alum and soap projects, though Bourchier still maintained his connection with the soap business.'" Ingram, however, did not escape the investigation. He wrote '' to Conway, excusing himself for the non-performance of his contract. He was ready to give up the ;£6ooo which he had already ' S. p. D. January 29, 1624. 2 S. P. D. March to July, 1624, dxi, 70, 71 ; clxiv, 98; dxix, 54, 55. ^ S. P. D. March, 1624, clxi, 72. * S. P. D. July 17, 1^24. 5 s. P. D. May 18, 1624. ' S. P. D. Conway's Letter Book, p. 140, Cal. 1623-25, p. 314. ' S. P. D. August 24, 1624. « S. P. D. September 6, 1624. " S. P. D. December 14, 1624. '" See chapter on the Soap Corporations, below. " S. P. D. September, 1624, clxii, 13-16. THE ROYAL ALUM WORKS 95 lost, but claimed ;^i3,ooo as partial compensation for surrendering his lease of the works which he had "brought to so good a condi- tion." He even offered "to repair the houses . . . and to supply such stock as is required by the lease." But his promises were unavaihng. He " was fetched up by a pursuivant from Yorkshire, where he was all in his glory, to answer an account about the alum mines, where he is found £ See article on Ingram in Diet. Nat. Biog. 5 S. P. D. February 22, 1625. » B. M. Add. 34,318, fol. 40. ' See above, page 86. « Audit Office Declared Accounts 2487, 354. Delivered May, 1633. The account extends from 1619 to 1628, but nothing was done at the works for some time after Ingram's removal. See B. M. Add. 34,318, fol. 40. 96 ENGLISH PATENTS OF MONOPOLY works. Ingram received the money and sold the equipment to the sub-contractors, pocketing the proceeds.' Finally, the king was paying to the original projectors pensions which did not appear in the alum accounts. The alum monopoly had been especially excepted from the Statute of Monopolies,^ and the work was reorganized after the exclusion of Ingram. Pindar, who had sided with Turner in his rivalry with Bourchier, became the acknowledged chief of the enterprise, and he with Turner farmed the works on a new lease at ;£ii,ooo per annum.' One of the earhest acts of King Charles had been to issue a proclamation * renewing the prohibition of the importation of alum. The preamble recited that "that great and commendable work of making alum of the native mines of this our kingdom, not many years since discovered mthin our county of York, is, by the disbursement and expense of sundry great sums of money made by our most dear and royal father, brought to such perfection as there is now no doubt or question but sufficient quantities of good, well roached, and merchantable alum may be made, as well for supply of our own dominions of so necessary and useful a commodity, as also for foreign vent and sale of great quantities thereof -with other our neighbor kingdoms." ^ At the time of this emphatic declaration of success, the works were practically suspended. The first operations at the revival of the undertaking ended in disaster. Loss resulted from plague in the north, and two ships were captured by pirates. The first quarter's rent was there- fore remitted." At this juncture Baron Sheffield, who had become Earl of Mulgrave at the accession of Charles I, sought to assume the management of the works. It was principally upon his property that the alum mines were situated, and various annuities in the business had been transferred to him by assigiunents,' so that his interest amounted to about ;^8ooo a year.' To recover this income, ' Dep. by Com., Exch. K. R., Hil. 22 Jac. I, no. 28. ^21 Jac. I, c. 3, sec. 11. See Appendix A. ' Docq. April, 1627. < B. M. Proc. Coll. April 13, 1625. ' Cunningham, ii, p. 293, n. 3, cites this proclamation as apparent evidence of the success of the undertaking. But the sincerity of the preamble is doubtful. ' S. P. D. February 23, 1627. ' See 8. P. D. December 24, 1623 ; August 13, 1624. 1 Hari. 3796, fols. 75 ff. THE ROYAL ALUM WORKS 97 he asked permission to work the mines with a stock to be provided by the coinage of ;£ioo,ooo of copper money.' He failed, however, to receive the authority required. The plants on his estates were of so little value, notwithstanding the thousands of pounds that had been expended upon them, that the farmers, Pindar and Turner, tried the' experiment of abandoning them altogether, and they set up new works near the Tower of London. But the inhabitants protested ^ vehemently to the Council against the "insufferable and contagious annoyance" of the "loathsome vapor." Pastures were said to be tainted and the fish poisoned. The matter was referred * to the College of Physicians, who reported unfavorably to the works, and it was resolved that the undertaking was " fit to be suppressed." * The order was shortly afterward renewed,^ but compliance was still delayed. ° Finally the farmers were persuaded to transfer the plant to Newcastle, and the Council wrote ' to the mayor and aldermen of that town directing their consent and assistance. They were not to fear for their salmon, for the farmers had assured the king that nothing should be let into the river to hurt the fish. Bourchier took advantage of the troubles of the farmers to offer better terms ' for a lease from the king, but he was disappointed, perhaps because of the king's obligations to Pindar, who, although he had not been paid for the great diamond,' nevertheless continued to loan large sums to his royal master. He was therefore in high favor, had already been made a collector of customs and was now unmolested in the alum farm. The king anticipated large profits from Pindar's operations, and discharged a debt which with interest amounted to £13,350 by assigning payment out of the alum farm of 1630 and 1631.'° Pindar apparently returned to Yorkshire directly after the London experiment, without attempting to start a new industry at Newcastle. When his lease was about to expire, in 1637, he wrote " to the king that he had recently "much advanced" the alum 1 S. P. D. June, 1627, Ixviii, 43. ' C. R. July 20, 1627. 3 S. P. D. July 23, 1627. * C. R. July 25, 1627. ' C. R. September 12, 1627. ' C. R. December 12, 1627. ' C. R. January 28, 1628. « S. P. D. 1628, cxxvi, 58. • Carew, Hinc illae Lachrymae, pp, 20, 21. >" S. P. Docq. July 4, 1628. " S. P. D. C. I, cccvii, 57, The calendar assigns " 1635 ? " as the date of this letter. It probably should be " 1637." 98 ENGLISH PATENTS OF MONOPOLY work, which had hitherto been only a burden; and his assertion is confirmed by other evidence.' It will have been observed that the entire history of the alum monopoly during the period of the first lease granted by Charles I was one of experiments. It was only near the end of this period that the alum business was redeemed from the consequences of the mismanagement under James I. Pindar, however, had so far succeeded as to lead the king to an effort to derive an increased revenue from the work. As early as 1630, he planned that at the expiration of Pindar's lease a new farm should be let for ;£ 12, 500 instead of £11,000.^ The king also took measures to appropriate the larger share of the rents. The mutual relations of the crown and the chief annuitant had long been compHcated. As early as 1624 a statement had been prepared in the Exchequer showing that the money which Sheffield received from the alum works, together with arrears of various rents and taxes owing by him to the king, exceeded the whole amount due to him from the alum by ;/^4925.' There seems to have been an attempt to challenge the terms on which he claimed to hold his property under grant from Queen Ehzabeth.* The dispute was settled before Pindar's lease expired. "In Hilary term, 9 Carol, prim., Edmund Earl of Mulgrave and others levy a fine to the king and his heirs and successors of the castle and manor of Mulgrave, and of all the lands and tenements in and belonging thereunto, formerly granted to the ancestors of the said earl by Queen Elizabeth." An indenture was then made with Sir John Gibson for the reversion of the farm of the works after the expiration of Pindar's lease. The ;£i2,5oo provided for in 1630 was reserved, ;^io,86o for the king, and ;£i640 for the Earl of Mulgrave. The property was then restored to the earl with the alum rents reserved.^ Pindar tried to obtain a renewal of his lease," 1 S. p. D. May 26, December 20, 1637. "^ S. P. D. June 26, 1630; Patent, July 14, 1631. ' S. P. D. August 13, 1624. * Hist. MSS. Com. Cal. Salis. Papers, iv, p, 105. 5 A Brief Narrative of the several remarkable Cases of Sir William Courten and Sir Paul Pindar, 1679, p. 10. Prof. Firth, in the article in Diet. Nat. Biog. says of Edmund Sheffield that the causes ofhis defection from the king in 1640 are obscure. The above proceedings seem to throw some light upon the subject. This was the dispute with Strafford to which Prof. Firth refers. « S. P. D. C. I, cccvii, 57. THE ROYAL ALUM WORKS , 99 but, failing in this, purchased the lease wliich Gibson and his principal, the Earl of Strafford, had procured. From 1640 to 1648 Pindar continued to conduct the undertaking, paying the rents both to the king and to the Earl of Mulgrave, "notwithstanding the interruption of making alum during the war." ' During the whole reign of Charles I, Pindar's pecuHar financial relations with the king render it very difficult to form even an approximate esti- mate of the success of the industry. His greatest source of income arose from his office of farmer of the customs. But his loans to the king were lavish to the point of recklessness,^ so that he may have advanced the alum rents at his own cost. The evidence for the prosperity of the undertaking rests chiefly upon his own testimony and upon that of his executors.^ But at all events, he was reluctant to resign his lease in 1648. The Earl of Mulgrave's petition for restoration to the mines came before the House of Commons in 1647.^ The committee to which the alum business was referred reported in favor of the earl, and also submitted the petition of the dyers of London, who complained of the "grievous and intolerable burden" of the alum monopoly. On the recommendation of the committee, the House ordered that the patent as well as the lease should be canceled,^ and " that the committee have a care that the alum business do not decay." In this vote the Lords concurred.^ Pindar petitioned that he might not be required to surrender his patent until he had been given opportunity to justify his title.' On the 4th of May the House of Lords ordered him to surrender his occupation to the earl,* to which Pindar rephed by asking them to suspend the order. In June the relatives of the Earl of Mulgrave, who claimed an interest in the work, petitioned that Pindar should be allowed to continue his connection as formerly; and Pindar renewed his own petition while the earl put in a counter-petition. Finally, it appears that 1 Brief Narrative, pp. 10, 11 ; Egerton, 2541, fol. 266; Harl. 3796, fols. 75 ff. See above, page 42. 2 " This Sir Paul never fails the king when he has most need." S. P. D. April 1, 1639. ^ The authors of Hinc illae Lachrymae, and Brief Narrative. < C. J. May 13, 1647. ' C. J. March 16, 1648. » L. J. March 31, 1648. ' Hist. MSS. Com. Rept. vii, p. 18, Cal. House of Lords MSS. L. J. x, p. 163. ' Brief Narrative, p. 11. lOO ENGLISH PATENTS OF MONOPOLY some sort of an amicable understanding was reached between Mulgrave and Pindar.* With the cancellation of the alum lease the works ceased to enjoy a monopoly, and the means of measuring their prosperity are therefore unsati?factory. It is known that new ventures were undertaken in Yorkshire, and they seem to have been more vigorously pushed than the industry still carried on upon the Mulgrave estate.^ The latter works were the subject of an official inquisition in 1662, which showed them to be in a very hopeless and dismantled condition, and owing to the workmen large arrears of wages. ^ In the next year a bill was brought into Parliament to restore the royal monopoly, but it was dropped after the first read- ing.* In 1679 the executors of Pindar were not able to show that more than 15,000 tons had been produced on the estate since 1648,' an average of only 500 tons yearly. The Yorkshire grounds, therefore, had no marked superiority over other alum deposits. The same comparisons can be made for an earher period, for the original Yorkshire patentees had had to buy out several valuable privileges which had been previously granted, and which had been excepted from the Yorkshire monopoly." One owner who was excluded by the revocation of his patent offered " to make alum cheaper and six times better in other parts of the kingdom." ' The alum industry was the most important business venture of King James, and it failed, partly through the business inefficiency of the king and his ministers, partly through the gross and culpable mismanagement of those to whom the work was en- trusted. There has scarcely been a time in modem English history when it would have been more disastrous to the government to act as entrepreneur than in the reign of James I. No king was sur- rounded by a greater host of gentlemen fortune-seekers; no king was favored with fewer statesmen of a high order of ability. None of James's ministers had genius combined with patience ; with the ' L. J. May 9, 25, June 13, 20, 27, 1648; Hist. MSS. Com. Rept. vii, 24, 27, 32. The authors of the Brief Narrative, however, refer (p. 11) to the ejectment of Pindar without alluding to any reconciliation. ' C. J. April 2, 1657 ; Cal. House of Lords MSS. L. J. xi, p. 528. » Dep. by Com., Exch. K. R. 1662. * May 27, 1663. Cal. House of Lords MSS. L. J. xi, p. 528. " Brief Narrative, p. 11. • Vesp. C. xiv (2), fols. 8, 12. ' See above, page 84. THE ROYAL ALUM WORKS lOI exception of Sir Julius Caesar none had any capacity for mastering details. In public works of any sort, therefore, the government was at the mercy of those who possessed a large amount of address and a moderate amount of ability. Sir Arthur Ingram, who, more than any other, was responsible for the conditions that prevailed at the works, was allowed to follow this enterprise for the king's glory, because he was too much of a rascal to be tolerated even at court, yet had to be provided for. He was permitted to retain his con- nection long after his unscrupulous methods were weU understood. The ease with which about ;£ioo,ooo was drawn from the king in successive installments, only to melt away imperceptibly with but little advantage to the works, would be incomprehensible if it were not known how easily others secured large amounts from the same source. The most that any one of the several commissions of inquiry could discover as a result of all the outlay were a few inadequate buildings, sadly decayed, and a body of desperate and starving workmen. The meagre and irregular output could not possibly have answered the needs of a cloth producing country, and illicit importation must have been more general than current complaints indicated. Prices were raised and the quality of the product deteriorated. There can be no possible doubt as to the commercial failure of the monopoly. Notwithstanding the exclu- sive right of manufacture, and the prohibition of importation, the industry did not return to the crown a pittance of the investment, while no reasoning from the facts can demonstrate that, by the monopoly and protection afiforded, the industry was "established." CHAPTER VIII THE CLOTH-FINISHING PROJECT The Clothworkers' Company of London was divided in its atti- tude upon the subject of the finishing of cloth before exportation.' Owing to its pecuUar relation to other clothing interests, it was remarkable in the variety of economic and industrial interests within its membership. The wealthier portion, primarily interested in trade, dominated the court of the company, but the industrial members were strong enough to assert their interests, and with royal aid they triumphed for a time over the commercial elements. They failed not because they were poHtically weak, but because their project was economically unsound. In the first Parliament of James I, a petition ^ was received from the artisan clothworkers of London, protesting against the numer- ous private patents for export of undressed cloth and praying that the statutes of 33 Henry VIII, c. 19, and 8 Elizabeth, c. 6, should be enforced. It was asked that the artisan clothworkers might be officially recognized as an independent company and duly incor- porated. Later the Earl of Salisbury received a petition from " the poor of the company of the clothworkers" (meaning the artisans), in which they referred to their late bill and the evidence given in support of it. This claimed that none but the Merchant Adventurers and private licensees derived any gain from the export of "whites" and that the king, the realm, and the clothworkers lost both in "treasure" and "honor." The conclusion stated that by requiring the finishing to be done in England the king would gain i8d. in custom for the imported dyestuff, and the clothworkers 20s. upon every cloth.' The Merchant Adventurers replied * that the kind of cloth that was exported "white" was unable to bear the crude Eng- lish dyeing processes, which were perfectly suitable for the cloths ' Unwm, pp. 124-125. ' S. P. D. March, 1604, vi, 109. ' S. P. D. April 3, 1606. * S. P. D. April, 1606 (xx, 10). THE CLOTH-FINISHING PROJECT IO3 which the Enghsh clothworkers were then finishing for domestic sale, as also for the new draperies. Dyeing of all cloths at home would be expensive and worse than useless, for it would not suit the continental taste. The merchants prophetically claimed that any such project would only result in driving foreigners to compete with the EngHsh in the earher as well as the later processes of manu- facture. They pointed out ' that in Spain the war had built up native manufactures which were eager to claim the whole Span- ish and colonial market; that France was anxious for an excuse to restrict the import of EngUsh cloth in order to encourage her own cloth trade; and that Germany and the Low Countries had superior faciHties and skill in dyeing and dressing, and were in a favorable position to take over all branches of the industry. There- fore, the first difficulty to surmount, if the project were to be tried, was to find some suitable means of exporting and disposing of the finished cloths, for the Merchant Adventurers urged that they would not be able to find a market for them.^ Alderman Cock- ayne had offered to transport and sell as many cloths as the cloth- workers could finish.' But it was several years before his proposi- tion found acceptance. Cockayne continued his interest and stood ready to afford to the artisan workers the capital which they needed. With his backing they once more appealed to the crown early in 1613, and were supported by the Dyers' Company. The trading members of the Clothworkers' Company disclaimed all connection with the project, and they endeavored to call the yeomanry to account.^ The situation abroad, however, favored the merchants of the Clothworkers', rather than of the Adven- turers', Company. The unprotected English cloth-dressing in- dustry had already so far succeeded in the oriental markets as to alarm the Flemings, and in 161 2 EngUsh dressed cloth was ex- cluded from the Low Countries.' This was a serious matter for England and added weight to Cockayne's proposals. Domestic affairs also favored the project, for in 1614 James, in disgust, dismissed the Addled Parliament, and at once undertook to look ' S. p. D. April, 1606 (xx, uncalendared). 2 C. R. December 18, 1613; July 12, 1614. ' S. P. D. April, 1606, XX, 9. < See Unwin, p. 124, quoting the Clothworkers' Court Book, March 8, 161 3. ' Durham, Relation of the Crown to Trade under James I, R. H. Soc. 1899, p. 210. I04 ENGLISH PATENTS OF MONOPOLY for new sources of revenue without the aid of Parliament, and this scheme afforded a strong fiscal temptation. Some powerful courtiers had been interested, the project was in harmony with the king's economic prejudices, and it appealed strongly to the mercantihst ministers. The draft of a possibly unpubhshed proclamation affords an excellent illustration of the attitude of the government. It recites the advantages and anticipates the objections to this project, but promises that there shall be "no stand of cloth nor abatement of prices, as may be to their pre- judices. And therefore they may go on in the courses of their former trading, leaving it to our care and providence to introduce this great and happy alteration to the better, without any interrup- tion of trade or puUing down of price in the mean time." The king avows that he is friendly to the Merchant Adventurers and' not unfriendly to their foreign customers, "but only we are willing to advance the dowry and stock of our kingdom; and wherever we see apparent means of doing our people further good, not to tie ourselves to the simple and positive degrees of their welfare, but to proceed from good to better, and to make posterity beholden to our times, for going through with that whereof our ancestors have only sown the seed, and not hitherto reaped the fruits." ' Cockayne's proposals were carefully considered in the Privy Coun- cil,^ and as a result the exportation of undressed cloth was pro- hibited ' and a new company of Merchant Adventurers was an- nounced, with Alderman Cockayne at its head. To this company any one might subscribe, and thus be free to engage in the trade of finished cloth. The original company of Merchant Adventurers were thus left without an occupation, as they understood the market too well to be wilhng to undertake to dispose of the Enghsh finished cloths, in the regions of their intercourse. Their charter was therefore suspended.* In February, 1615, the privileges of the old company were for- mally surrendered and a charter given to the new company.^ But the new company was not yet prepared to effect the reforms for ' Soc. Ant. Proc. Coll. May 25, 1614. ' C. R. December 18, 1613, July 12, 1614. ' Soc. Ant. Proc. Coll. July 23, 1614. * Soc. Ant. Proc. Coll. December 2, 1614. ' Gardiner, li, p. 387 ; Unwin, p. 182. THE CLOTH-FINISHING PROJECT I05 which it was constituted, and asked to be allowed to export un- finished cloths till there was time to build up a trade in dressed cloths.^ The merchants were allowed to export as many undressed cloths as they pleased, upon undertaking to receive from the finish- ers 6000 pieces the first year, 12,000 the next, and 18,000 the third year.^ Even with this concession, the company handled its part of the contract in a very unsatisfactory manner, and the Council began to show impatience.' In order to see what terms could be secured from the old Merchant Adventurers they were authorized to assemble for the purpose of considering the subject.* But the former cloth merchants adhered to their original conviction, and would not undertake to concede more than to experiment with a very few finished cloths.^ The new company was suffered to con- •tinue its operations, but was ordered peremptorily to buy up an unhmited supply of cloth which was offered by the Gloucester- shire workers, although the company protested that the work and material were bad." There were also -complaints from other quar- ters about the "stand" ' of cloth.' It was seriously proposed to put in force the most arbitrary sumptuary regulations in order to pro- vide a home market for the cloth, since the trade was in the ut- most confusion.' Cockayne was summoned before the Council and told to see that the merchants devised some means to remove the glut, "whereof it behooved them to have a care at their utter- most peril." They were required "to resolve amongst themselves whether they would go forward in the work of dyeing and dress- ing." " 1 Chamberlain to Carleton, S. P. D. Febraary 23, 1615. 2 C. R. April 7, 9, 161 5. * Bacon to James I.August 12, 161 5, February 25, 1616; Spedding's Letters of Bacon, v, pp. 178, 256. * S. P. D. February 7, i5i6. * S. P. D. May, 1616, Ixxx, no. » S. P. D. August 2, 6, 1616. ' Meaning " stop " or " interruption " of trade. Cf. Johnson's Dictionary, which quotes from Bacon : " The greatest part of trade is driven by young merchants, upon borrowing at interest ; so as, if the usurer either call in, or keep back his money, there will ensue presently a great stand of trade.'' ' Bacon to the king, September 13, 1616; Letters, v, p. 74. * Lansd. 152, fol. 271 ; S. P. D. J. I, Ixxx, 108; S. P. D. November 29, 1616; C. R. June 2, 13, 1616, September 4, 1616. "> They replied with a long petition, which the Council ordered to be condensed. C. R. September ii, 12, 16, 1616 I06 ENGLISH PATENTS OF MONOPOLY Meanwhile events abroad were adding to the difficulties at home. The Dutch made vigorous efforts to develop a weaving industry to supply all their own needs, and offered a substantial bounty; and other countries joined in retaliation.* The struggle can hardly be said to have been advantageous to either party, but from the mercantilist view which inspired the whole contest a permanent advantage was given to the foreigners, who seem to have retained the industries inaugurated during the struggle.^ The Low Countries were in a position to disorganize seriously the trade of England with a large part of Europe, for the Staple was at Middleburg. When the English plan was understood, that town at once began to put impediments in the way of the new com- pany. For example, the new company had been authorized to transport a certain number of white cloths which it had been forced to buy up before the suspension of the old company had gone into effect.' Thereupon the burgesses of the mart town con- fiscated the goods, as the property of interlopers.* Somewhat later the Privy Council yielded to the pressure of the new company, and promised to remove the mart to some other town.* But the company did not continue its existence much longer. In 1617 the new company resigned its charter," and the old company of Mer- chant Adventurers was restored to its former privileges.' The king acknowledged that "time had discovered many inabihties which could not at first be seen," and that "the grounds proposed by the undertakers of that work consisted more in hopes than in effects." Thus ignominiously ended what is justly regarded as the most ambitious attempt in the reign of James I, to "develop the resources of the realm and render it economically independent."' * S. P. D. September 11, 1616; Gardiner, ii, p. 388; Unwin, pp. 190, 191; Dur- ham, p. 218. 2 Misselden, Free Trade, 1622, p. 41 ; Cunningham, ii, p. 233, n. 9. ' C. R. July 12, 1614. * C. R. September 8, 1614. See Appendix N. ' C. R. September 18, 27, 1616. » C. R. July 9, 1617. ' Soc. Ant. Proc. Coll. August 12, 1617. * Cunningham, ii, p. 294. CHAPTER IX THE IRON INDUSTRY Without the aid of monopolies officially conferred, iron- works had sprung up in Sussex, Surrey, and Kent in the southeast, and in the Forest of Dean.^ The plants in these parts and elsewhere were estimated to number about eight hundred at the beginning of the seventeenth century.^ Most of these industries were under- taken, as far as one can judge, by immigrants who brought with them continental methods. They smelted the iron near the sources of supply of iron ore and wood. Statutes and proclamations, as well as other contemporary evidence,' testify to the anxiety which was felt concerning the destruction of forests by the iron-furnaces. The rising price of fuel in London led to an act in 1581 * forbidding the erection of new iron-works within a radius of twenty-two miles of London or within fourteen miles of the Thames. There were other reasons for keen anxiety, for it was feared that the navy would be imperiled by the consumption of timber for industrial purposes. These fears may have been well founded; and there is good reason to think that severe measures were actually needed in order to preserve the forests, for the art of forestry was not understood, and the too rapid felHng of trees would have brought grave inconveniences, if nothing worse. The problem was not how to estabhsh a new industry in the country, but how to reconstitute one already established. The stimulus to experiment would have been strong, even without the hope of patents, for the ironmasters were feehng the need of a new and cheaper fuel.^ One patent ° was taken out in Elizabeth's reign for the use of 1 Hewins, English Trade and Finance in the Seventeenth Century, 1892, p. I2. ' Sturtevant, Metallica, 1612, p. 3 in ed. 1858. See Appendix S. ' Norden, Surveyor's Dialogue, 1607, p. 212. » 23 Eliz. c. 5, sec. 3. See also i Eliz. c. 15 ; 27 Eliz. i,. 19 ; 39 Eliz. c. 19. ' Compare the similar and simultaneous difficulties in the glass industry, above, pages 67 f£. « Pat. 31 Eliz. pt. 8 (October 9, 1589), to Proctor and Peterson. I08 ENGLISH PATENTS OF MONOPOLY coal instead of charcoal in iron-smelting. But the patentees must have failed, for nothing is heard of any work undertaken by them. Another patent was asked ' through the intercession of the Count- ess of Cumberland, but this project also failed to bear fruit. A similar project in 1607 received a patent but accompHshed no- thing.^ The next project became famous, not because of its suc- cess, but because its inventor was an accomphshed advertiser. This was the plan of Simon Sturtevant who in 1612 received a patent for thirty-one years. The grant included privileges for a great variety of furnaces, mills, and machines that he claimed to have perfected. He professed to explain them in a book ' which he pubKshed at the time. This is often referred to as the first "patent specification," but it hardly deserves that title. Its partial resemblance to specifications is accidental, and the practice of formally reveaUng the exact nature of an invention did not become common till long afterward. Sturtevant's treatise, moreover, gave no really inteUigible explanation of what was intended to be done. It might more appropriately be called the first "prospectus." In it the author set forth the many wonderful feats which he promised to accomphsh. He was evidently bidding for investors. He ex- pected to make £33,000, chiefly by smelting iron with sea-coal. At his suggestion, the grant distributed the ownership into thirty- three shares. Of these ten were reserved to the king, five for Prince Henry, two for the Duke of York, and one for Viscount Rochester. The remaining fifteen went to the patentee, who disposed of all but one share to capitalists.* Sturtevant's patent was revoked the next year on account of its failure. John Rolvenson received one ' in his stead, which likewise came to nought. The struggles of Dud Dudley to introduce the art of smelting with coal form one of the most interesting of the industrial romances of the period. The story of his efforts and of the opposition which he had to encounter sounds more like the episodes of the latter part of the eighteenth century than the first half of the seventeenth. ' Hist. MSS. Com. Rept. Cal. Salisb. Papers, v, p. 159, March, 1595. ' Pat. to Chauntrell and Astell, Docq. December, 1606; Grant Bk. January 30, 1607. ' Treatise of Metallica, 1612. See Appendix S. This gives text of the patent. * Ihid. pp. 3-4, 6-12, in ed. of 1858. (Appendix S.) ' Rolvenson, Treatise of Metallica, 1613. THE IRON INDUSTRY IO9 Dudley left a record of his trials, which is the chief source of information concerning the man who came nearer than any other of his century to succeeding in this task.* His efforts began in 1619, when he abruptly terminated a university career to undertake the management of his father's iron-works in Worcestershire. He immediately saw that there was a pressing need for a new fuel supply, as the neighboring wood was growing scant. He therefore endeavored to utilize the coal deposits that lay near at hand. He secured, through Lord Dudley, a patent '' for his invention, without disclosing his secret. His patent was exempted by name in the Statute of Monopolies. His first reverse came early, his works being completely ruined by a flood. He restored the works, and claims to have succeeded in producing good iron by the new process, selHng at £4 instead of the usual price, £,1, for pig iron; and ;£i2 instead of £15 and ;£i8 for bars. His own evidence is confirmed by the jealousy of his rivals, who in Worcestershire, and in two places in Staffordshire, successively, ejected him by violence, destroyed his tools, and troubled him with Htigation.' Up to this point his privileges from the crown had been ample, and his lack of .success was due to the fact that he was not ade- quately protected in the exploitation of them. But he was not altogether free from difficulties with government, for there were others who were seeking like privileges. Chief among these was one Sir Phihbert Vernatti, of Dutch extraction, who petitioned for a patent. Dudley's partners objected that this would be an infringe- ment of their patent. As might have been expected, it was the Privy Council that assumed to judge the matter. The difficulty was that, Dudley's process being secret, it was impossible to decide as to whether his methods were being employed by Vernatti. The Coun- cil ordered * that both parties should deposit vnth the clerk of the Privy Council sealed explanations of their respective inventions. Two years later Dudley's partners petitioned against Vematti's patent, which they claimed was being used only to trouble them. The Council ordered Vernatti to appear before them, but he de- 1 Dudley, Metallum Martis, or Iron made with Pit-coal, Sea-coal, etc. 1665. 2 Text of the patent in Appendix T. ' Metallum Martis, ed. of 1858, pp. 62-67. * C. R. April 6, 1636. no ENGLISH PATENTS OF MONOPOLY faulted and the patent was nullified.' Dudley secured a re-issue of his patent ^ in 1638, in the face of strong opposition. He had no favorable opportunity for prosecuting his undertakings during the dozen years of disorder that followed.^ Once more, in 1651, Dudley tried to set up an iron-furnace, this time near Bristol, but was again disappointed.* He spent ;i£7oo, then quarreled with his partners, and his royahst record was used against him in legal actions. His ambition was finally checked at the Restoration, when he was refused a new patent for which he applied.''' Dudley admitted that he was never able to produce large quan- tities of iron by the use of sea-coal, but claimed that this was due to the inadequacy of his plants, and that he could produce iron that was better and cheaper than the charcoal iron. But his secrets died with him," and it was not until 1738 that the use of coal in the smelting of iron was successfully undertaken.' Dudley's experi- ments, while interesting, can lead us to no positive conclusions concerning the results of the patent system. He certainly was anxious for patents, and at the Restoration the failure to secure a privilege discouraged him from proceeding further. On the other hand, before his rather unusual disappointments he would prob- ably have undertaken as much without a patent as with it. While he entertained hopes of success, the conditions at large were amply sufficient to induce him to introduce desirable changes. There was no reason, however, why he was not justly entitled to the added encouragement of a patent duly limited. But the "consideration," which is so important in modern grants, was wanting. He did not receive patents in return for reveahng his secrets, and whether his ' Metallum Martis, p. 64. * Pat. 14 Car. I, pt. 43 (May 2, 1638). Appendix U. ' Metallum Martis, pp. 64, 65. * Similar undertakings enjoyed two of the few patents granted during the Inter- regnum. Jeremy Buck had his patent sanctioned by Parliament. He made three attempts but failed. In 1647, Cromwell granted a patent to Capt. John Copley who sunk several hundred pounds to no purpose. Dudley was invited to inspect the plant and condemned it. Metallum Martis, p. 66. ' Metallum Martis, pp. 64-66. * Powle's Account of the Iron Works of the Forest of Dean, Phil. Trans. 1677, pp. 931-936, and Yarranton's England'' s Improvement by Land and Sea, 1 681, pt. ii, pp. 159-169, show that, after Dudley, charcoal rather than coke was being used. ' See Diet. Nat. Biog. article Darby (Abram). THE IRON INDUSTRY 1 1 1 privileges were useless to him, or prejudicial to the country at large, cannot be determined, because these patents were not en- joyed under normal conditions. After serious difficulties in estab- Hshing his new undertaking, it was suddenly paralyzed by the Civil War. The problem which the ironmasters had to solve, when they tried to employ coal in smelting, was to discover a means of cheaply reducing the coal to a satisfactory fusing agent. Two solutions were possible, and apparently both methods were tried. Either the coal must be refined, or an unusually hot blast must be apphed. Most of the experiments of the period seem to have been with the former method. Dudley apparently used both in combination. Nothing was accomplished in the direction of obtaining a blast giving sufficient heat to make the unrefined coal useful, and it is impossible to determine whether the refining of coal was success- ful enough to make it really suitable for smelting purposes. The production of some sort of coke was seen to be necessary, but this task was as difiicult as that of using the coke after it was prepared. The successful production of coke at a later day seems to have owed nothing to the experiments of this time. Whether or not anything like the later process of coking was in use, it is im- possible to decide, for the processes were kept secret. The appar- ent failure to produce a satisfactory article may or may not have been entirely due to the improper way in which the coke was em- ployed. Certainly there was no lack of experiments. The number of patents was out of all proportion to the results.' ' Out of a total of 103 patents for invention between the years 1620 and 1640 there were 23 for furnaces, ovens, smelting, and refining. See Specifications of Patents for Inventions. CHAPTER X THE SALT MONOPOLIES It now remains to consider in detail some of the experiments with monopolies created after the passage of the act of 1624. In a study of the industrial results of the system, the shortness of the period which remained before the Long Parliament and its radical meas- ures, renders the history of most of these monopohes less signi- ficant than that of the privileges which originated in the reigns of Elizabeth and James I. But in at least two instances under Charles I rigid monopolies were conferred in articles of such inelastic demand, and the measures of enforcement were so vigorous that the few years of Personal Government were sufficient to establish the new corporations upon as strong a foundation as any of the previous privileges had enjoyed. The soap corporations will be discussed in the next chapter. In this the salt monopohes will be considered. Salt evaporation had been carried on, upon the east coast, prob- ably before the reign of Ehzabeth, but this industry had never been important, and had been entirely given over by reason of foreign competition, — Scottish, French, and Spanish salt being better and cheaper.' In the early part of the reign of Elizabeth several patents were issued for new inventions in the manufacture of salt.^ But during the last fifteen years of that reign Thomas Wilkes enjoyed a monopoly of the salt trade of the east coast.' Complaints of injury to trade and shipping were sent in imme- diately thereafter from the eastern ports.* It was this monopoly which was the chief grievance in the Parhament of 1601, at which time it was claimed that Wilkes and his deputy had raised the price > Lansd. 47, nos. 67, 68. * Page, Denizations, p. xlix; Hulme, L. Q. R. April, 1896, p. 149; January, 1900, p. 47. ' Pat. 27 Eliz. pt. 6 (September i, 1585) ; Pat. 28 Eliz. pt. 5 (February 20, 1586). * C. R. March 22, 1587 ; Lansd. 47, nos. 67, 68, 69; Lansd. 52, no. 20. THE SALT MONOPOLIES 1 1 3 of salt from i4d. to as many shillings per bushel.' The iniquities of the patent were acknowledged by the queen after the debate on monopoUes, and in her subsequent proclamation it was especially revoked without trial at law, being found abusive both in matter and in execution.^ The next monarch did not revive any such patent,' and it was left for his successor to create a new monopoly, with far greater privileges, under company organization. Early in Charles's reign an agitation was commenced for a new monopoly similar to the one Wilkes had had. The circumstances under which the scheme originated may be briefly recounted. Salt being a commodity in which cost of carriage represented a large proportion of the price, the supply was drawn from the numerous sources which could most conveniently supply the demands of different locahties. Spain, France, and Scotland exported salt into England. Some was prepared at home, but this was relatively small in amount and not cheap or good. England, France, and Spain then became involved in warfare, and suppUes of salt were dij05cult to obtain, especially after the English destroyed the salt- works on the Isle of R^, and the French those at Rochelle. To guard their supply, the French prohibited the exportation of salt, and the consequent drain upon the Spanish supply led to a simi- lar edict there. Finally, in 1630 a proclamation was issued by Charles forbidding the export of English salt, a not very neces- sary measure.^ When the occasion was removed, the French and Spanish edicts were suspended and salt, became cheap again in England, costing ^^3 or f^-^ los. per wey ^ for English and French salt, and £4 for Spanish. The revival of foreign competition had a natural result, and the English salt-makers, to protect the pro- sperity they had enjoyed during the war, proposed a tax on imported salt. The form which protection ultimately took was the creation of a close monopoly for a group of men who, it was claimed, knew nothing of the salt business, but who were ready to share their profits liberally with the king. A proposal was submitted by these > D'Ewes, p. 647. ' See Appendix J. ' For several patents for new processes, see Ordish, Antiquary, July, 1885. * Davies, Answer to Printed Papers by the late Patentees, 1641, pp. 2ff. ' At London a wey = 40 bu., a bu. = 10 gal. The measure differed at each port. 114 ENGLISH PATENTS OF MONOPOLY projectors for the monopoly of salt, asking to be incorporated, with the exclusive privilege of supplying all the salt for the east coast, from Southampton to Newcastle. They were to exclude continental salt and to make an agreement with the Scottish pro- ducers. An imposition of los. per wey was to be paid to the king, the petitioners undertaking to sell at f^/^ or ;,£5 per London wey.' The Privy Council approved the petition, and at once set down elaborate provisions for the indentures, and wrote to the Scottish salt-makers ordering them to join the new company or to lease their salt-pans to it, for "it is necessary that a work of this nature should be under one rule and government, lest being distracted the whole might run into confusion." Early in 1636, accordingly, a charter of incorporation was granted to the Company of Salt- Makers of South and North Shields.^ Acting under authority, they appropriated all the works and pans of the Tynemouth. Thereafter the eastern prices were from £4 15 s. to £6, while west of Southampton the price remained at f_^2) ^^'^ less.' During the first year of operations the eastern fishing towns experienced great hardships from the dearth of salt. The Privy Council was obliged to pass^ special orders of reUef. Not only were the subjects in- jured, but the consequences of the patent were visited upon the king, and the Council recorded "that now since foreign salt has been prohibited, there hath not been enough brought into the port of London by the EngUsh and Scottish corporations to furnish the city of London and to supply his Majesty's occasions and expenses in household as heretofore." ^ In the charter of the company there had been a saving clause to protect the undertaking of Nicholas Murford, who had previously obtained a patent for a new invention in salt preparation." Differ- ences now arose between him and the company with regard to the duty upon Scottish salt.' The difficulty was adjusted the more easily because internal dissensions had been stirred up in the company; and this was made the occasion for resigning their ' C. R. February 22, 1635. ' Docq. January, 1636. ' Davies, pp. 6, 7. * C. R. November 13, 1636; May 30, November 27, 1637 ; December 19, 1638. <• C. R. May 9, 1637. ' Docq. November, 1632. ' C. R. July 15, 1638. THE SALT MONOPOLIES 1 15 patent, as the majority were weary of the opposition which the monopoly was encountering, and perhaps of the policy of the man- agers. The salt-makers of Shields resumed their pans, and there- after, for a time, EngUsh and Scottish salt was sold in London at £3.^ Almost at once, however, it was planned to transfer the mono- poly privileges to Murford.^ But during the negotiations Thomas Horth, who had been a chief projector of the old patent, together with those of his associates who still desired to remain in the busi- ness, made an appHcation for a new incorporation. The Privy Council then held a meeting to consider the rival propositions as well as the protests of the fishing towns against any monopoly.' It was voted to refer the subject to the lord treasurer and Lord Cottington, who reported in favor of Horth's proposition,* on the ground that the latter promised a fixed price, and because he depended upon fire rather than evaporation in preparing the salt. A day of hearing was then given to opponents of the project.^ The Cinque Ports, Southampton, Poole, Weymouth, Melcomb Regis, and Yarmouth, as well as London, sent representatives to protest, but their objections were promptly disposed of. "His Majesty and the Board conceiving it to be a matter of great advantage to the kingdom that salt made within his Majesty's dominions should be preferred and used before any foreign salt, and finding upon debate that salt made in his Majesty's dominions is sufficient for all uses, did therefore order that the said business be forth- with estabh'shed." ° In January of the next year Horth and his associates received a new patent,' which was supported during that year by numerous warrants of assistance, summonses, and imprisonments by order of the Council.' Nicholas Murford was one of those imprisoned for "animating others with their refractoriness and obstinacy," ' Davies, p. 7. 2 S. P. D. C. I, cccviii, nos. 8 and 9. The calendar assigns an incorrect date. ' July 29, 1638. From A True Remonstrance of the State of the Salt Business, London, 1641. In Brit. Mus. volume of tracts collected under the title Petitions and Remonstrances, etc., 1638-75, fol. 221. (George III, Library.) Also in Soc. Ant. Coll. Broadsides. • True Remonstrance, date of August, 1638. ' C. R. December 5, 1638. • True Remonstrance, date of December 19, 1638. ' Davies, p. 7. « C. R. Charles I,xvi, 211, 497, 595, 668 ; xvii, pt. i, 197, 198. Il6 ENGLISH PATENTS OF MONOPOLY and direction was given that Murford's work should now cease altogether.' But Horth soon found himself in trouble. John Duke, farmer of the customs on salt, and a partner in the Salt Company, complained to the Council that Horth concealed from his partners the accounts and reckonings and all knowledge of its transactions; that he removed officers without the consent of his partners; that he admitted foreign salt upon arbitrary terms for his own benefit; and that he had paid no rent to the king.^ As a result of an in- vestigation, extents were sued out for the payment of the rent due.' The second Shields salt patent was issued only a very short time before the proclamation recalling numerous patents and com- missions, which was a measure taken by the Privy Council in an- ticipation of the meeting of Pariiament. That proclamation, while it accomplished or announced the sweeping away of a large number of aggravating patents, did not involve those for soap and salt. But the salt patent did not long survive, for the Long Parliament called in the patent and thereafter the trade was free to all.* The evidence as to the effect of the Shields monopoly rests mainly upon the petition of the company ^ and the reply to it." On behalf of the patentees it was claimed that at all times a suf- ficient quantity had been provided, and at low prices. It was charged that the "engrossers, forestallers, and regrators" of Lon- don, since the surrender of the patent, had sold at prices higher than those of the patentees. The retailers, refiners, and "some western merchants trading to Newfoundland" were said to be the chief opponents of "this native manufacture, which all other provinces and states do so much cherish when they can erect any native manufacture within their own principalities to give employ- ment to their own natives, that they prohibit the importation of any such commodity upon confiscation of ship and goods." Their answer to the charge of monopoly was that the charter was sub- ject to revocation by king or Council if found inconvenient, "it debars no man from making that formerly had any works,' no ' C. R. December 13, 1639. ^ C. R. February 29, 1640. ' C. R. April 12, 1640. * November, 1640. See Davies, p. 17. 6 True Remonstrance. ^ Davies. ' This was not exactly true, for the Council interfered with Independent pro ducers. THE SALT MONOPOLIES 117 man from erecting of new works, only requires them to be of the corporation and to pay the duty imposed by his Majesty and to serve the subject at the rates agreed on.* If a monopoly be a sole vendition, the society are not the sole venders, for all salt retailers ' are free to come and buy at the works." " The reply to this peti- tion was written, not by a salt merchant, but by a fish merchant, who may be presumed fairly to represent the consumers, and his evidence is less subject to suspicion. The moderate price of salt in London in 1639 was explained as due to the Scottish invasion, as a result of which salt from Scotland was put on the London market at such a low rate as to defeat the purposes of the patentees, who demanded nearly twice the market price. But in September, October, and November, 1640, just before Parliament called for the patent, the price was raised to ^ and £8. After the inter- vention of Parliament, the price again dropped to ;£3.* The ambition to develop the native manufacture of salt by means of monopoly and of prohibition of import resulted only in disappointment. Between the years 1640 and 1660 the salt-works ' Those who were already producing at Newcastle and in Scotland were invol- untarily drawn into the company. ^ The company did not have any monopoly of the retail trade, but it had the exclusive right to supply at wholesale in all eastern ports. It controlled importa- tion as well as manufacture. The independent producers were apparently engaged in refining rather than evaporating. The company was preparing to exclude the independent producers from this also. ' Notice also this defense of the salt monopoly, which attempts to show the importance of independence of foreign nations : " If possibly it may be compassed and made in England to be offered hereafter when brought to full perfection at the same or somewhat a higher price, than we used to be served from abroad, question- less it will be good policy rather than expect it from others who will deny it us in greatest need, and we found both unskillful and unprovided of most of the materials to furnish us therewith. . . . And besides 'making it ourselves we shall not only have it at a constant price, which before did much vary, rising and falling as more or less store came from abroad, which was so much the more hazardous in regard many ships brought it only when they could get no other employment." Robinson, England^! Safety in Trade's Increase, London, 164T, p. 19. * At Cambridge, according to Rogers's figures, Agric. and Prices, vi, pp. 408, 409, the usual price of salt was 13s. 4d. per quarter from 1630 to 1635. In the fol- lowing years, the prices were : 1635, l6s. ; 1636, 19s. ; 1637, i8s. 8d. ; 1638, i8s. 8d. ; 1639, 14s. 8d. and 19s. lod. ; 1640, 27s. 4d., later i6s. ; 1641, 13s. to i6s. 2d. For Oxford, Rogers notes occasional purchases " at unheard of rates, at from 40s. to 50s. the quarter." (v, p. 434.) Il8 ENGLISH PATENTS OF MONOPOLY at Shields were dependent entirely upon protective duties for their successful competition with Scottish producers. Whenever the latter were put on equal terms, the industry at Shields languished. Dur- ing the Union of the two countries under the Protector, the industry was completely ruined.* The salt industry was not carried on suc- cessfully in England until after the discovery, in 1670, of rock salt at Droitwich.^ ' Lansd. 253, no. 17. Reproduced in Richardson's Reprints, vol. iiL It is there incorrectly cited as Lansd. 258. ' See Cunningham, ii, p. 310. CHAPTER XI THE SOAP CORPORATIONS As has already been indicated, the inception of the soap project was formed toward the end of the reign of James I.' Sir John Bourchier's protegees, Jones and Palmer, received a patent for hard soap, including the right to search all soap-houses to prevent infringement of their privilege.^ After this was granted, there was a correspondence of several months with the government of the city of London. Secretary Conway wrote to the lord mayor of the invention, which would result in "saving many thousands yearly to the kingdom, to the increase of the stock of the kingdom and furthering the balance of trade." ' But as the soap-boilers objected to it, a public trial was ordered.* The aldermen appointed a com- mittee,^ which reported the result of the trial, expressing some doubt whether the soap was made wholly of Enghsh materials: "With much labor it will wash coarse linen (if it be used by skill- ful washers acquainted therewith) as well as the best sort of ordin- ary soap used, but far less sweet and merchantable, and it is not fit for fine Hnen, as it destroys the cloth." " Little was done to exploit the privilege until 1631, when it was confirmed' and a com- pany was incorporated for the purpose of buying up and work- ing the patent.* The new society, known as the Company of Soap- makers of Westminster, undertook to work the new invention 1 See above, pages 93, 94. 2 Pats. 20 Jac. I, pt. 12, no. 10; 21 Jac. I, pt. 5, no. 2 (Febraary 23, 1623). Ap- pendix W. 3 Rem. March 30, 1624. The phrase "balance of trade " had just been popular- ized at this time. See my article in the Quart. Jour. Econ., November, 1905, on this subject. * Rep. April 6, 1624. 5 Rem. April, 1624. (See Anal. Index, vi, p. 38.) » Rem. May 2, 1624. ' Pat. 7 Car. I, pt. 10 (December 17, 1631). To Jones et al. ' Patent January 20, 1632. I20 ENGLISH PATENTS OF MONOPOLY and to produce 5000 tons of soap yearly, paying to the king ^^ per ton or ;/^20,ooo per annum. Tallow and ashes were no longer to be exported nor potash imported, but the company's exclusive privilege was still only the searching and testing of soap.' The latter privilege, however, soon proved to be a powerful weapon against independent producers. The company's rights were made more valuable by a proclamation ^ which forbade the importa- tion of soap or potash, and all domestic soap was to be made only with vegetable oil. This was a test that none of the independent soap-boilers could stand, and it did not much matter whether or not the members of the company confined themselves to rape and olive oils, because the searching was in their own hands. Shortly afterward an information was exhibited ' in Star Cham- ber against Overman and fifteen others of London for unlawful assembly, for infringing the patent of the Westminster Company, for contempt of proclamations, for using fish-oil, refusing the as- say, and conspiring to raise prices. After some htigation, the Star Chamber decreed * that the offenders should be committed to the Fleet during the king's pleasure, disabled to trade in future, and fined in sums ranging from ;£5oo to ;£iSoo each. They remained in prison till February and April in the next year, before which time two had died in restraint. The fines were not mitigated nor suspended, as was usual, but measures were taken for coUec- tion,° and a general order was set down in Star Chamber, aiming to inspire greater fear. This decree amplified the preceding regu- lations, directing that no new masters should undertake to work without consent of the Star Chamber, that no soap should be made outside of a one-mile radius of London, Westminster, and Bris- tol, and that all soap-making should be under the rule and gov- ernment of the company." The Council, in order to raise the repu- tation of the new soap, ordered another trial in the city before the lord mayor,' who after a public test certified in more favorable ' Pat. Rolls, Indenture 8 Car. I, pt. 5 (May 3, 1632). ' Soc. Ant. Proc. Coll. June 28, 1632. ' November 22, 1632. Short and True Relation of the Soap Business, p. 7. * May 10, 1633. Relation, pp. 7-10; Rushworth, ii, pt. ii, app. pp. 54, 55. ^ August 23, 1633. Relation, p. 11. ' Rushworth, ii, pt. ii, app. pp. 60-62, 109-115. ' C. R. December 6, 1633. THE SOAP CORPORATIONS 121 terms than his predecessor had done,^ and a fresh proclamation was issued, reciting the mayor's certificate, " by which it appeareth that the soap made by the society is good, sweet, and serviceable for our people." ^ Strict command was given for the observance of all orders and decrees in this business. Independent soap-boilers continued to be dealt with. Some who had been imprisoned were now released upon making submission, and by giving bonds were freed from the payment of further fines. ^ Some attempted to test the character of the monopoly by claiming admission into the company, on the ground that they had served the full seven years' apprenticeship and were now duly quahfied as masters. But the refusal of the company to admit them demonstrated the really exclusive nature of the company.^ A new proclamation was then issued which took cognizance of the rising price of soap, and commissions were constituted to "rectify" prices and to search for offenders. The corporation was to receive the benefit of fines collected from dehnquents. The attorney-general was charged to proceed in Star Chamber against obstinate offenders. A general prohibition was laid upon all manu- facture of soap in private houses, even for private uses. Finally, the Westminster Company was exempted from the general prohibition against the use of fish-oil, and was allowed to make soap by the old method with this kind of oil, for the use of dyers, wool-combers, and others who specially objected to the hew soap.^ Orders in Coun- cil were also set down to restrain importation, and blank warrants were entrusted to the company for use against any offenders." The next proclamation,' while renewing the former regulations, added one which showed how devoid of value were the nominal privileges of the independent soap-boilers, for all grocers, salters, chandlers, and other retailers were forbidden to buy or sell any soap except that procured from the corporation. Shortly after this, the privi- > C. R. December 29, 1633. See ako Gardiner, viii, p. 73. Cf. above, page 119. ' Soc. Ant. Proc. Coll. January 26, 1634. 3 Relation, p. 15. See also C. R. 1633-4 and 1634-5 (ix, 426, 428, 462, 501, 532, 550, 607, 635,637; X, 116, 122, 133-144. 279. 296, 314.315)- * Relation, p. 16. 5 Soc. Ant. Proc. Coll. July 13, 1634. ° Relation, p. 19, September 29, 1634. ' Soc. Ant. Proc. Coll. January 20, 1635. 122 ENGLISH PATENTS OF MONOPOLY leges of the company were still further strengthened by a new covenant,' according to the terms of which they agreed to make 5000 tons annually, confined to three houses. They were to operate a joint stock, paying the king ^d per ton. In return for the higher profit to the king, they were to be allowed to charge a higher price for their soap. The difficulty of preventing violation of this very unpopular monopoly was such that the company and the Privy Council were at length constrained officially to recognize infringements, and a commission was issued to certain nominees of the Westminster Com- pany to compound with offenders.^ The hostiUty of local author- ities was so great that enforcement could not be entrusted to the ordinary magistrates. The soap monopoly well illustrates the devices by which Charles attempted to overcome the long-standing difficulty of securing an effective local administration of the govern- ment's unpopular measures. Not only were commissions frequently resorted to, but an attempt seems to have been made to develop an entirely dependent staff of officers, subject to crown command. The messengers of the Chamber answered this want, and they were used with increasing frequency.' This poUcy was of course calcu- lated to intensify local bitterness against the "popish soap.'"* It was at this time, however, that politics within the king's court were undergoing a change. Hitherto, notwithstanding the fact that the company had not fulfilled its obligations to the Treasury and that it had failed even to satisfy its own objects, it had been protected and upheld through the influence of its patron. Sir Richard Weston, who had become lord treasurer and Earl of Portland. This was also in the face of the opposition of Archbishop Laud and his faction. After Portland died. Laud was still unsuccessful, partly through poor tactics, in overthrowing the Westminster Com- pany.^ The independent soap-boilers offered far better terms for the privilege of resuming their occupation, and for the revocation * Relation,'^. 23, April 12, 1636. ' S. P. D. December 18, 1636; Relation, p. 24. = See C. R. June 16, 1637; S. P. B. July, 1637. * The popular antagonism to the Westminster Company as a Catholic insti- tution was understood by an Italian then resident in England. See Penzarii's letter (Februanr^")' '^35' q"°tE 400 U \ yearly 320 thousand yearly ) ' pounds Again, the said metallic invention, being put and converted to lead, tin, copper, brass, and glass-metal, and all the several minerals of 1 78 APPENDICES England, Ireland, Scotland, and Wales, will questionless clear yearly, by means of fuel, above ten thousand pounds more, over and besides the ordinary gains in the said business. So that yearly iron reve- nues, added unto these other metallic revenues, do amount unto 330 thousand pounds, as was said before. Now out of these metallic gains of 330 thousand pounds yearly, the owners of the mills, hearths, and furnaces may have and receive liberal rates, and allowed and allotted unto them over and besides their ordinary gains, only in Ueu of conforming their furnaces, refineries, and chaff eries to this invention of pit-coal and earth- coal. And also the king's most excellent Majesty, the prince his Highness, the Duke of York, the Lord Viscount Rochester, and other parties interested in the patent may, by their composition and agreement with the owners and ironmasters, yearly receive, by way of rents and licenses, the residue of that gain which remaineth over and above that which was allotted and allowed to the ironmasters, for applying of this inven- tion to their ordinary way of making of iron, as more fully shall be specified, shown, and proved in the appendix of this treatise, which I am now preparing for the printer and the press with all convenient speed. This may suffice, therefore, to give the reader satisfaction concern- ing the two first points, for the knowledge and worth of the businesses and concerning the manner how certain yearly annuities may be raised to the dealers and assistants. Now to persuade the third point, that the author is able to effect the work undertaken in as ample manner as he propoundeth, we plead and allege as foUoweth. First, the inventioner, by his study, industry, and practice, hath already brought to pass and pubUshed divers projects, and new devices, and new projects, as well hteral as mechanical, very bene- ficial to the commonwealth. His literary inventions do appear and are known partly by his printed treatise of Dibere Adam, which is a scholastical engine automaton, and partly in divers other manu- scripts which he hath to show. His new mechanics already per- formed are to be seen in the inventions which he called by the names of press- wares, wood pleits, balance, engine, baramyha, and Hubla, of all which in private speech he is ready more largely to confer, and to manifest their truth and goodness at his workhouses at Islington APPENDICES 1 79 and Highbury. To conclude, therefore, he doubteth not but (by God's blessing and assistance, semblably with success), to effect his invention of iron-works, as also all his other Thus bavid ' reasoneth metalUc devices and inventions here contained in the from the bear and hon to patent or privilege of Metallica. Sanf''"'' Secondly, the consideration of things in the like nature with it, are good inducements to persuade well of this project for brick-making, brewing, dyeing, casting of brass-works, and were (not many years since) done altogether with the fuel of wood and charcoal, instead whereof sea-coal is now used as effectually and to as good a use and purpose. Again (that which is somewhat nearer the mark) the blacksmith long agone forged all his iron with charcoal (as in some places where they are cheap they continue this course still), but these many years small sea-coal hath and doth serve the turn as well and sufficiently. Add hereunto, that very lately, by a wind furnace, green glass for windows is made as well by pit-coal at Winchester House in South- wark as it is done in other places with much waste and consuming of infinite store of billets and other wood fuel. Thirdly, the inventioner hath already experimented and made trial of the chief particular means and instruments of divers cheap ways of making irons in real and substantial models to himself (though in small things according as his means would give him leave). And this of his credit and honesty he avoucheth and protesteth, where- fore he more confidently presumeth to work the same effects in grander instruments and means of trial, after that he hath received allowance of the dealers and assistants for it. Fourthly, there can be no doubt of performing the matter pro- pounded, if the inventioner can but make or cause sea-coal to become as serviceable for metalUc purposes as wood and charcoal are, the art and skill whereof consisteth chiefly in three points. The first is to bring earth-coal to that equahty of heat that wood or charcoal hath, that is to say, that it make neither hotter nor colder fire than the wood or charcoal doth. The second means is so to order and prepare pit- coal that all mahgnant properties which are averse to the nature of metaUic substances may be extracted from it, or at least destroyed in it. The third means is the addition and infusion of those deficient properties which, as they are in charcoal, so ought they to be found in pit-coal. l8o APPENDICES Now this threefold mistery and secret, the author can certainly perform and achieve by the powerful efficacy and means of his dex- terous prerogative instruments devised for this purpose, as more at large is shown both in his treatise and the appendix, which very shortly shall come forth, and also shall be further confirmed and justified by his daily experiments and trials, which he will be ready to show to them whom they shall in any way touch or concern, or to them who are otherwise desirous to assist and deal, for the experi- menting and accomphshing of these so worthy good businesses. And then also shall they know my purpose for contracting and bargaining by word of mouth, as it is best fitting for private dealings and nego- tiatings. And thus (having briefly touched these four promised points) I conclude and shut up this preface of Metallica, humbly and un- feignedly beseeching the Lord, who by His Holy Spirit inspired Exod. 31 i I, Bezaleel, Aoliah, and Hiram with the light of mechanical li Nlsi'dom.' inventions, and in all manner of workmanship for His fr?t.^"psaim effectual blessings in these our enterprises, that (that) "'■ which was begun in His fear, may be prosecuted and fully accomphshed and built by His heavenly and helpful hands, to the glory of His name, and for the good welfare and emolument of the king's most excellent Majesty, the church, and the political estate wherein we live. — Amen. Simon Sturtevant. Metallica CAPUT I THE TRANSCRIPT OF HIS MAJESTY'S INDENTtTRE Reader. As I understand you have promised and covenanted in your patent more fully and evidently to express and enlarge in a printed treatise to be called Metallica, every point and part of your privileged business, to the intent that the reader might the better conceive and judge of the inventions propounded, and might the sooner also be induced to assist and set forward so good and worthy works, first therefore I demand of you by what name and appli- cation you entitle that general head, under the which you reduce and comprehend all the several arts and inventions of your patent. APPENDICES l8l Author. The general, that comprehendeth all the other particular inventions, is called Metallica, which is a word derived and de- duced from the Greek and Latin words metallon and metallum, which signifies in English metals, which properly are mineral sub- stances digged out of the earth, of which sort are iron, lead, tin, copper, brass, gold, and silver, &c. R. 2. Doth your patent of Metallica only contain the making of metals by the means of sea-coal and pit-coal, and with your other metaUical instruments which you have devised for that purpose? A. His Majesty's grant is very large and ample, for it doth not only comprehend and privilege the making of all kinds of metals, after the manner prescribed, but also equally authorizeth and Hcens- eth any other mechanical inventions comprehended under the general definition of Metallica, which is mentioned in the schedules or manu- script treatise annexed to the patent, which schedules have the same force and validity as his Majesty's indenture, itself. R. 3. Then that I may know and understand the extent of your privilege, repeat, I pray you, word by word, definition of Metallica; as it is written in the said schedules annexed to your patent. A. Metallica, mentioned in the petition, is thus defined. Metallica is an art or invention, showing how divers things and materials, now made and attained unto in a very chargeable sort, after the ordinary way, may be made and attained to after a more cheaper manner, and as with the help of common instruments, so more especially by divers new devised metallical instruments and means. From these metaUical instruments the art is generally called Metallica. R. 4. This summary definition giveth me some general hght and understanding into your businesses, but that I may be the more fully satisfied, I pray you rehearse also the tenor of his Majesty's grant as it is under the broad seal of England. A LETTER PATENT James R. This indenture, made the xxix day of February, in the year of the reign of our sovereign Lord James, by the grace of God, King of England, Scotland [sic], France, and Ireland the ninth, and of Scot- l82 APPENDICES land the forty-fifth. Between our said sovereign lord of the one party, and Simon Sturtevant, Gentleman, of the other party. Whereas the said Simon Sturtevant, by his long study and great charge, hath attained unto divers new exact mechanic arts, mis- teries, ways, and secrets of his own invention, whereby all kinds of metals, works, and other things and materials, as namely irons, steels, leads, tins, coppers, brasses, and such Uke — Secondly, all kinds of metallic concoctions, as sand-metals, ash -metals, ammels, and such hke — Thirdly, all kinds of burnt earth, as tiles, paving- stones, bricks, and such like — Fourthly, all kinds of press- wares, as pressed tiles, pressed bricks, pressed monions, pressed stones, and such Hke, with divers other things and materials now made after the ordinary course, with wood fuel and charcoal, may be as well made, wrought, and effected, as the said Simon Sturtevant aflSrmeth, with sea-coal, pit-coal, earth-coal, and brush fuel, whereby the woods now commonly wasted, in all the chief woodland countries of this realm of England, by iron-mills and such other metaUical furnaces and hearths, may be preserved from the great consumption thereof, and saved from hke inconvenience in other his Majesty's domin- ions, all which premises so by this new invention to be made, the said Simon Sturtevant hath undertaken shall be in substance and for use as sufficient and as good as the other like materials now made and wrought with the chargeable and excessive waste of wood and charcoal. And whereas, also, the said Simon Sturtevant, for the better making, working, and effecting, heating, burning, melt- ing the said metals, works, things, and materials, by and with sea-coal, pit-coal, earth-coal, and brush fuel, hath by his said in- vention and skill, invented divers furnaces, hearths, tests, tools, engines, mills, and other instruments and means, new, and of his own invention, never heretofore used or put in practice by any other; and hath also, by his said inventions and skill, attained to the know- ledge how to use and employ divers other common instruments to the making, working, and effecting the said metals, works, materials, and things, which other common instruments have been heretofore and are used in other arts, sciences, and manual occupations, but were not, nor have been as yet, converted, used, or employed to, for, or about the making, working, effecting, and producing the said metals, works, and things, which said skill and APPENDICES 183 inventions of the said S. Sturtevant, and the said metals, works, things, and other materials, and the means and instruments whereby to work and effect the same, are in some measure mentioned and expressed in the schedule or schedules to these presents annexed, and shall be more fully, amply, and particularly demonstrated, specified, described, and contained in a large treatise, which the said Simon Sturtevant hath already conceived, and shall be put in print, and so pubUshed before the last day of Easter term next ensuing the date hereof, which treatise so to be pubUshed shall be entitled — A Treatise of Metallica, which said invention of the said Simon may and will prove beneficial to the commonwealth, both in regard of the abundant plenty of the said things and materials which it will daily bring forth, as also because it saveth and pre- serveth abundance of timber, charcoal, and wood fuel, and other things and commodities wastefully consumed and spent, the gen- eral want whereof already is felt. And forasmuch as our said sovereign lord is given to understand that this art, skill, industry, and inven- tions of the said Simon Sturtevant, of making, casting, founding, working, and acquiring of the aforesaid metals, and works of iron, materials, and things by sea-coal, pit-coal, earth-coal, and brush fuel, and all and every, or any of them, and also the making of the said new devised engines, hearths, furnaces, and other means and instruments, and the employing of the said instruments used in other sciences and arts, to the making, working, effecting, and producing the said metals and other works, materials, and things, is a thing not yet practiced, nor brought into any trade, occupation, or mistery, within any of his kingdoms, but is an invention in substance new, and which shall not prejudice or cross any from privilege or grant by his Majesty heretofore made or granted under the great seal of Eng- land, for the using and making of any former invention, and there- fore fit to be privileged for a certain time, the rather for that his Highness conceiveth that the said inventions and skills may and will become profitable and good for the commonwealth of these realms, and also augment his customs and imposts, in regard it bringeth forth great and abundant store of the aforesaid materials and things, not only for the use of his Highness's realms and domin- ions here at home, but also for traific and merchandise into for- eign countries abroad, which are customable. In regard whereof. 184 A PPENDICES and also for and in consideration of the good, faithful services here- tofore done and performed under his said Majesty by the said Simon Sturtevant, as also to the end that the said Simon Sturtevant may receive some convenient recompense, benefit, and profit for his said services, as also for his studies, labors, and charges in perfecting these inventions to the common good which may ensue hereby to his Highness's realms and dominions. This indenture witnesseth that our said sovereign lord the king of his especial grace, certain knowledge, and mere motion, and of his prerogative royal, hath given and granted, and by these pre- sents for him, his heirs, and successors, doth give, and grant to the said Simon Sturtevant, his executors, administrators, and as- signs, and his and their deputy and deputies, the sole, full, abso- lute, and free power, Hberty, and authority, to make, work, pro- duce, acquire, and bring forth, all kinds of the aforesaid metals, and other the materials and things, by and with sea-coal, pit-coal, earth-fuel, and all, every, and any of them, in all parts and places of his Majesty's realms of England, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales, and also within all the same places and dominions, to make, frame, erect, acquire, and provide, or cause to be made, framed, erected, acquired, and provided, all necessary instruments and means, as namely: All workhouses, furnaces, hearths, mills, structures, engines, vessels, tests, tools, instruments, devices, or things of iron, or other stuff or substance whatsoever, which are already in use in any other trade, mistery, art, or occupation, and as yet not exercised or used in or about the making, working, casting, founding, or acquiring and producing of the said metals and other materials and things, for and to the end and purpose aforesaid, viz. : To make, work, and effect the said metals and other materials and things, by and with sea-coal, pit-coal, earth-coal, and brush fuel, and all, every, or any of them; and also in all the said places and dominions, to make, frame, and erect, use, and employ, or cause to be framed and erected all the said new furnaces, hearths, devices, instruments and means, which are merely of the new invention of the said Simon Sturte- vant to, for, in, or about the making, working, casting, founding, acquiring, and producing of the said metals, and other the said mate- rials and things, and to all or any other purpose, use, or uses what- soever, in as ample sort or manner as they or any of them are de- APPENDICES 185 scribed, expressed, or mentioned in the schedule to these presents annexed, or shall be more fully demonstrated and specified in the treatise of Metallica, which shall be, as aforesaid, printed before the last day of Easter term next ensuing; and our said sovereign lord doth further, by these presents, for him, his heirs, and suc- cessors, assign, appoint, ordain, constitute, Hcense, and authorize the said Simon Sturtevant, his executors, administrators, and assigns, to have the sole power, liberty, and authority, by and with sea-coal, pit-coal, and brush fuel, and all, every, and any of them, and by his said inventions, arts, and skills, invented and devised for the making of all kinds of the said metals and materials and things, as workhouses, furnaces, mills, quernes, structures, engines, vessels, tools, instru- ments, devices, and things heretofore used in any other arts or sci- ences, to be employed or used in or about the making, working, or producing the said metals, things, and materials, or any of them, as aforesaid, and also to have the sole power, liberty, and author- ity for the making, framing, erecting, or producing of all the said new devices, instruments, and means metalUcal, as aforesaid, in what sort or about what things soever the same or any of them shall be used or employed; and that the said Simon Sturtevant, his executors, assigns, administrators, and their deputy and deputies, and none other, without his or their special license or toleration, shall or may make any kind or kinds of the said metals and other the materials and things, by or with sea-coal, pit-coal, earth-coal, and brush fuel, or all, some, or any of them, by means of, or by using and employing the said inventions of the said Simon or any part or parcel of them, or any of them, or make, frame, and erect any the said workhouses, furnaces, hearths, mills, structures, engines, tests, vessels, tools, instruments, devices, and things heretofore used in any other arts or sciences which, by the said inventions of the said Simon, shall be transferred or converted, or turned to be used, exercised, and employed in or about the making, casting, founding, working, acquiring, and producing of the said metals or materials, things, and devices, by or with sea-coal, earth-coal, pit- coal, and brush fuel, or all, some, or any of them, or to make, frame, or erect any of the said devices, instruments, and means of the said Simon, either to the making, casting, or working, or effecting all or any of the said works, metals, or materials, by or with sea-coal, earth- 1 86 APPENDICES coal,and brush fuel, or all, some, or any of them, or to any other end or purpose whatsoever; to have and to hold, use, exercise, and en- joy the sole making, casting, founding, working, tempering, ac- quiring, and producing of all and every the said metals, and other the said premises, in manner and form aforesaid, and to the end and purposes aforesaid, unto the said S. Sturtevant, his executors, administrators, or assigns, and by his and their deputy and depu- ties, for and during the time and term of 31 years now next com- ing, immediately from and after the date of these presents, yield- ing, rendering, and paying therefor yearly, and every year im- mediately from and after the date hereof, for and during the said term of 31 years, to our said sovereign lord, his heirs, and success- ors, at the receipt of his Highness's' Exchequer at Westminster, always in the term of St. Michael, ten parts of such sum or sums of money and other clear yearly profits, in 33 parts, to be divided as he, the said Simon Sturtevant, his executors, administrators, or assigns, shall yearly have or receive, during the said 31 years now next coming, and by way of composition or otherwise, for or by mak- ing, framing, or "erecting, casting, founding, and acquiring, or other- wise for licensing or authorizing any person or persons whatsoever to make, frame, cast, erect, found, or acquire, any of the said mate- rials, workhouses, hearths, mills, structures, furnaces, engines, vessels, tests, tools, instruments, devices, and things aforesaid, the charges and expenses in and about the same, and every of them, expended out of the said 33 parts always deducted and allowed to the said Simon Sturtevant, his executors, administrators, and as- signs; and likewise, yielding, tendering, and paying unto the most excellent Prince Henry, eldest son of our said sovereign lord, Prince of Wales, Duke of Cornwall, and Earl of Chester, and his execu- tors, or administrators yearly, and every year during the said term of one and thirty years, in the same terms of St. Michael, five parts of the said sum and sums of money, and other clear profits in 33 parts to be divided, to be always paid and delivered to such person or persons as the said most excellent prince shall appoint to receive the same, at his Highness's palace of St. James, in the county of Middlesex; and also yielding, rendering, and paying unto the most high and mighty Prince Charles, Duke of York, second son of our said sovereign lord, unto his executors, and administrators, during APPENDICES 187 the said term of thirty-one years in the said terms of St. Michael the Archangel, two parts of the said sum and sums of money, and other clear profits aforesaid, in 31 \sic\ parts to be divided, to be always paid and delivered at the said palace of St. James, to such person or persons as our said sovereign lord the king, during the minority of the said Duke of York, and after his full age, he the said duke shall appoint to receive the same; and moreover, yield- ing, rendering, and paying unto Robert, Viscount Rochester, Baron of Wainick, his executors, and admim'strators, in the said terms of St. Michael, one part of the said sum and sums of money and other clear parts to be divided; and as concerning the residue of the said sum and sums of money, and other clear profits to be divided, it shall and may be lawful to and for the said Simon Sturtevant, his executors, administrators, and assigns, to retain and keep one part thereof to his and their discretion, and in such maimer and form, and by such rates and proportions as he and they shall, in their discretions, think meet to dispose thereof, and to expend and to distribute the same, and every part and parcel thereof, amongst such person or persons as shall adventure, join, be assisting, aid- ing, or helping to the advancing or setting forwards of the works and inventions aforesaid, or any of them, and amongst such per- son or persons as shall be the owners of the said workhouses, fur- naces, hearths, mills, structures, engines, vessels, tests, tools, in- struments, devices, and things before mentioned, or any of them. And the said Simon Sturtevant, for him, his heirs, executors, ad- ministrators, or assigns, and for every of them, doth covenant and grant, by these presents, to and with our sovereign lord, his heirs and successors, that he, the said Simon Sturtevant, his executors, ad- ministrators, or assigns, shall and will yearly, and every year during the said term of one and thirty years, well and truly yield, render, satisfy, content, and pay, or cause to be contented and paid, the said ten parts of the said clear profits, in manner as aforesaid unto our sovereign lord, his heirs, and successors, and shall and will, likewise, during the aforesaid term of one and thirty years, well and truly yield, render, satisfy, content, and pay unto the said Prince of Wales, his executors, or administrators, the said five parts of the said clear pro- fits, in manner and form aforesaid. And also to the said Duke, his executors or administrators, the said two parts of the said clear profits 1 88 APPENDICES in manner and form aforesaid. And also to the said Lord Viscount Rochester, his executors or administrators, the said one part of the clear profits in manner and form as the same one part is formerly in these presents appointed to be yielded, rendered, and paid to the said Lord Viscount Rochester, his executors and administrators; and foras- much as when the said skill, work, and inventions of the said Simon Sturtevant, which hereby his great industry, cost, and expenses hath attained to, shall appear and be made commonly known, it is very likely that many persons will privily of the said Simon Sturtevant, his executors, administrators, or assigns, make, frame, and erect the like, and peradventure having his platform, add thereunto some further new invention for their gains, or otherwise put the same in practice at their pleasure, and make the said metals and other materials and premises aforesaid, thereby reaping the fruits of the labors of the said Simon Sturtevant, and so defraud both our said sovereign lord and the said prince, and the said Duke of York, and the said Lord Viscount Rochester, and also the said S. Sturtevant, his executors, administrators, and assigns, and such others as shall adventure there- in, of a great part of the benefit and profit which might otherwise accrue unto our said sovereign lord, and to the said most excellent prince and Duke of York, and to the said other parties, by such skill, work, and invention aforesaid. Our said sovereign lord, therefore, favoring the good endeavors and studies of the said Simon Sturte- vant in the premises, and his former service done unto his Highness, for him, his heirs, and successors, for the better encouragement of him the said Simon Sturtevant, his executors, administrators, and assigns, in the same, and the better to enable him to undergo and bear the burden and charge thereof, and to avoid all deceit that any way may hinder our said sovereign lord, or the said most excellent prince, or Duke of York, or any of the said parties aforesaid, doth by these presents declare and signify, that his Majesty's royal will and pleasure is, and our sovereign lord doth hereby straightly will and command all and every person or persons of what state, degree, or condition soever, that they nor any of them, during the said term of one and thirty years, shall not presume nor attempt by any art, device, skill, or cunning, directly or indirectly, without the special Ucense, allow- ance, and consent of him the said Simon Sturtevant, his executors, administrators, or assigns, or of his or their deputy or deputies, there- APPENDICES 189 unto by him or them lawfully authorized, to make, frame, erect, con- trive, or perform any kind or kinds of the aforesaid metals, and the other materials and things, or any of them, by or with sea-coal, earth-coal, and brush fuel, and all or any of them, or any of the said new devised instruments and things, either to or about the making or working the said metals, things, and materials as aforesaid, or to any end or purpose whatsoever, or to do any act or thing whereby, or by means whereof, our said sovereign lord the king, or the said most excellent Prince of Wales, or the said Duke of York, or the said Simon Sturtevant, his executors, administrators, or assigns, or other the said parties, shall or may sustain any prejudice, loss, or detri- ment, in the said inventions or works, or in any profit or commodity which they or any of them may or might otherwise receive or enjoy by means of the said inventions or works, or any of them, upon pain of the high displeasure of our said sovereign lord the king, and upon pain of imprisonment of their bodies, and forfeitures of all and every the said materials, instruments, and things aforesaid, which shall be wrought, framed, and made by any person or persons contrary to the tenor of these presents and royal prohibition therein, with such further penalties, pains, and forfeitures, as by the law and statutes of the said realms can or may be inflicted upon them, or any of them, for their willful and obstinate disobedience and contempt of his Highness's commandment and prerogative royal. And if it shall happen that any person or persons contemptuously neglecting this his Majesty's vnll and pleasure in these presents declared, after notice thereof given, shall make or acquire any kind or kinds of the aforesaid metals, and other the materials and things, by or with sea- coal, pit-coal, earth-coal, and brush fuel, or all, some, or any of them, by any of the said means or inventions, or any part or parcel of them, or any of them, or shall frame, work, erect, use, or employ any such or the Uke engines, instruments, tools, for and to the purposes afore- said, the same and all and every of them shall be taken and seized, by the constable or other officer dweUing nearest thereunto, to and for the only use and behoof of our said sovereign lord the king, his heirs, and successors; and further, our said sovereign lord the king, of his abundant grace, certain knowledge, and mere motion, doth by these presents, for him, his heirs, and successors, give and grant full power and authority to the said Simon Sturtevant, his executors. IQO APPENDICES administrators, and assigns, and his and their deputy and deputies, and every of them, with the assistance of a constable, tithing-man, headborough, or any other ordinary officer in any city, town, place, or places, as well within the hberties as without, within the said realm and dominions, at all and every time and times, to have access and entry into any house, place, and places where such metals and other the premises shall be made and wrought or otherwise laid up con- trary to his Majesty's grant, and there to search and provide and see that during the period of 31 years, no manner of such or the like in- ventions, works, or practices of making or erecting any kind or kinds of the said metals and other the premises to be made, wrought, sold, used, or employed wdthin the said realms contrary to the true mean- ing of these presents, and by all lawful and convenient ways and means, to search, see, examine, and find out all offences, during the said time, that shall be committed contrary to any grant, hcense, authority, and commandment, prohibition, or other things in these presents mentioned, specified, and to seize as aforesaid such instru- ments and other things aforesaid whatsoever made, framed, or erected, used, exercised, or occupied contrary to the true intent of these presents or any clause herein contained. And his Highness's will and pleasure is, and by these presents for him, his heirs, and suc- cessors, his Majesty doth straightly charge and command all justices of peace, mayors, sheriffs, bailiffs, constables, and all other officers, ministers, and subjects of his Highness, his heirs, and successors for the time being, that they and every of them, during the said term of 31 years, or the duplicate, exempUfication, or the enrollment thereof, shall be aiding and assisting to the said S. Sturtevant, his executors, administrators, assigns, and deputies, and every of them, in the due execution of all and every the said grants, authorities, command- ments, licenses, privileges, inhibitions, prohibitions, and every other thing in these presents mentioijed and specified, or any of them: Provided always, that this indenture, not anything, nor anything therein contained, shall extend or be construed to extend to restrain or hinder any person or persons from exercising any of their own in- ventions, or arts heretofore exercised, put in use, or privileged by any of his Majesty's letters patents heretofore made and granted to them or any of them, but that it shall and may be lawful to and for all and every the said person and persons to exercise, use, and put in prac-, APPENDICES . 191 tice all and every the said inventions heretofore practiced, put in use, exercised, and privileged by any of the said letters patents to them or any of them made or granted, in as ample sort and manner as they might or may exercise, practice, or use the same, if these presents had never been had or made, anything in these presents to the contrary notwithstanding. In witness whereof, to the one part of the inden- tures with the said Simon Sturtevant, our said sovereign lord, thfe king's Majesty, hath caused the great seal of England to be put, and to the other part thereof remaining with our said sovereign lord the king, the said Simon Sturtevant hath put his seal. Given the day and year first above written. Exam. Henry Hubbers. The Docquet to the Patent This is your Majesty's part of the Indentures whereby your High- ness doth grant Hcense and privilege unto Simon Sturtevant, Gentle- man, that he, his executors, deputies, and assigns only and none other, shall and may, during the term of 31 years, make, practice, and put in use, within any of your Majesty's realms and dorAinions, certain inventions, furnaces, and instruments devised and invented by him- self, for the working and effecting with sea- coal, pit- coal, earth- coal, and brush fuel, divers things and works done heretofore with wood fuel, as namely, irons, steels, leads, tins, coppers, brasses, glass- metals, mines, tiles, bricks, pottery- ware, and such hke. And there is reserved to your Majesty upon this grant ten parts in thirty- three parts, to be divided of the clear yearly profits that shall be made by the said inventions; and to the Prince, his Highness, five of these parts, and to the Duke of York, two of those parts, and to the Lord Viscount Rochester, one of those parts; and to the said S. Sturtevant one or other of those parts, and to the disbursers of the money for the trial and effecting of the said inventions fourteen such parts, and the declaration and discovering of this invention is partly set down in a certain schedule which is to be annexed to these indentures. And the full and plain manifestation thereof is to be set forth in print by the said Simon Sturtevant before the last day of Easter term next, and containeth a proviso that this grant shall not cross any former grant heretofore made to any others. And is done upon signification 1 9 2 APPENDICES given unto Christopher Perkins, Knight, of your Majesty's good pleasure in that behalf. Exam. Henry Hubbers. It is his Majesty's pleasure that these do pass by immediate warrant. Robert Salisbury. Received 29 of February, 161 1. An Indenture between the king's Majesty and S. Sturtevant. COPPIN. [The remainder, called The Manuscript Treatise of Metallica, is a professed explanation of the author's several inventions.] DUDLEY'S PATENT FOR IRON, 1 62 1 James, by the grace of God, etc., to all to whom these presents shall come, greeting. Whereas our right trusty and well beloved Edward Lord Dudley hath, at his great travail and industry, and after many chargeable experiments, found out " the mistery, art, way, and means of melting iron ore, and of making the same into cast works or bars with sea- coals or pit-coals in furnaces with bellows, of as good condition as hath been heretofore made of charcoal," a work and invention not formerly performed by any within this our kingdom of England, we, graciously favoring and willing to cherish such ingenious and pro- fitable inventions, and finding that the working and making of the said iron by the means aforesaid in this kingdom will not only in itself tend to the pubhc good thereof, but also thereby the great expense and waste of timber and wood converted into charcoal and consumed upon iron-works will be much abated and the remnant of wood and timber within this land will be much preserved and in- creased, of the want whereof not only ourself in respect of provision for our shipping and otherwise, but also our subjects for many necessary uses are very sensible, and holding it agreeable to justice that the authors of so laudable and useful inventions should in some measure reap the fruits of their studies, labors, and charges. Know ye, that we, for the causes aforesaid, and other good con- siderations us hereunto moving, of our special grace, certain know- ledge, and mere motion, have given and granted, and by these pre- sents, for us, our heirs, and successors, do give and grant unto the said Edward Lord Dudley, his executors, administrators, and assigns, full and free liberty, hcense, power, and authority, that they and every of them, by him or themselves, or his or their deputies, factors, servants, or workmen, at his and their charges, shall and may, at all and every time and times, and from time to time during the term of fourteen years next ensuing the date hereof, use, exercise, practice. 194 A PPENDICES and put in use within this our realm of England and the dominion of Wales, at his and their liberty and pleasure, the said mistery, art, way, and means, of making of iron ore and of making the same into cast works or bars with sea-coals or pit-coals in furnaces with bellows, and also to make, erect, and set up in any place or places within the said realm and dominion, or either of them, any furnace or furnaces, engine or engines whatsoever, concerning the said mistery, way, art, and means of melting of iron ore with sea-coals or pit-coals, and of making the same into cast works or bars as aforesaid, and the same iron so cast and made to utter and sell in gross or retail or otherwise, to do away at his and their free wiU and pleasure, and to his and their best commodity and profit. And further, to the end this our pleasure may be the better effected, and that the said Lord Dudley, his executors, administrators, and assigns, may the more fully enjoy the benefit of this our grant, we will, and for us, our heirs, and suc- cessors, do straightly charge, inhibit, and command, and do also, of our more especial grace, certain knowledge, and mere motion, for us, our heirs, and successors, grant to the same Edward Lord Dudley, his executors, administrators, and assigns, that no person whatsoever, being within any our realms or dominions, nor any other person or persons, either denizens or strangers born in any foreign realm or country whatsoever, of what estate, degree, or condition he or they be or shall be, other than the said Lord Dudley, his executors, ad- ministrators, and assigns, or such as shall be by him or them set on work or authorized, shall or may at any time or times during the said term of fourteen years hereby granted or mentioned or intended to be granted, practice, exercise, or put in use, or any way counterfeit the said mistery, art, way, or means of melting of iron ore, and of making the same into cast works or bars, with sea-coals or pit-coals in furnaces with bellows, or any furnace or furnaces, engine or engines concerning the same, within this our realm of England, or the dominion of Wales, or any place or places in them or either of them, upon pain of forfeiture to us, our heirs, and successors, of the ore and iron so to be melted or made contrary to the true intent and meaning of these presents, and to have the said furnaces, engines, and devices utterly pulled down and defaced; and also upon pain of our high indignation and displeasure, and such further penalties, punishments, and imprisonments as by any laws or statutes of this APPENDICES 195 our realm can or may be inflicted or imposed upon the offenders for their disobedience in contemning our royal command; and also for the better execution of this our grant, we do by these our letters patents, for us, our heirs, and successors, give and grant full power, liberty, and authority to the said Edward Lord Dudley, his executors, administrators, and assigns, that he or they, by himself or themselves, or his or their deputies, factors, servants, or assigns, shall and may, at all time or times convenient, and from time to time during the said term of fourteen years, with the assistance of a constable or some other officer, enter into all place or places convenient, where he or they or any of them shall have any just cause to suspect any such ore, iron, or engines, or instruments, melted or used contrary to the true meaning hereof, to be or remain within this our realm of England, and the dominion of Wales, or either of them, as well within Uberties, as without, and there carefully and diligently to try and search by all lawful ways and means for all such ore and iron furnaces, engines, and instruments, as by any person or persons whatsoever shall, dur- ing or within the said term before granted, be melted, made, erected, set up, or used contrary to the tenor and true meaning of these our letters patents, and, finding any such, to seize the ores and iron so melted and made to the use of us, our heirs, and successors, and to deface and pull down the said furnaces, engines, and instruments so erected and used. And further, that he, the said Edward Lord Dudley, his executors, administrators, and assigns, do carefully and dihgently endeavor themselves that the intent and meaning of these our letters patents be diligently observed, and if in the execution thereof he or they shall find any resistance that he or they shall cer- tify the same into the Court of Exchequer of us, our heirs, and suc- cessors, to the end the offenders therein may receive condign punish- ment for the same their offences; unto which Court of Exchequer we do hereby, for us, our heirs, and successors, give power and author- ity upon such certificate as aforesaid, and due proof thereof, to in- flict such punishment and imprisonment, or either of them, upon the offenders as their offences shall deserve and to the said court shall be thought meet. And we do also by these presents for us, our heirs, and successors, will and command all and singular mayors, justices of peace, bailiffs, constables, headboroughs, and other officers, minis- ters, and subjects whatsoever of us, our heirs, and successors, that they 196 APPENDICES and every of them, be, from time to time, during the term aforesaid, aiding and assisting to the said Edward Lord Dudley, his executors, administrators, deputies, assigns, servants, and workmen, in all things in or about the accompUshment of our pleasure expressed in these our letters patents, and in the exercise and execution of the same or any article or clause therein contained, and that they, nor any of them, do any way hinder, molest, interrupt, or let the said Edward Lord Dudley, his executors, administrators, assigns, depu- ties, servants, workmen, or chapmen, or any of them, concerning the premises, as they tender our pleasure and will avoid the contrary at their perils; and these presents, or the enrollment thereof shall be their sufficient warrant and discharge in that behalf; provided always, and our will and pleasure is, that this our present grant and privilege, or anything therein contained, shall not in any wise extend or be construed to extend to the prejudice of any other person or persons concerning any other grant or privilege heretofore made by us or any of our progenitors or predecessors, kings or queens of England, now in force for melting of iron ore or making of iron or any iron- works; provided also that if it shall appear unto us, our heirs, or successors, or to the Privy Council of us, our heirs, or suc- cessors, at any time hereafter, that this our present grant and privi- lege is or shall be inconvenient to the commonwealth, that then, upon signification of the pleasure of us, our heirs, or successors, under our or their sign manual, signet, or privy seal, or upon signification under the hands of any six or more of the Council of us, our heirs, or successors, for the time being, these presents, and every grant, clause, article, and thing therein contained shall cease, determine, and be utterly void and of none effect, anything before in these presents contained to the contrary notwithstanding, although ex- press mention, &c. In witness whereof, &c., witness ourself at Westminster, the two and twentieth day of February. Per breve de privato sigillo, &c. u PATENT TO HORSEY, RAMSEY, FOUIKE, AND DUDLEY FOR IRON, 1638 Charles, by the grace of God, King of England, France, and Ireland, Defender of the faith, &c., to all to whom these presents shall come, greeting. Whereas our beloved subjects, Sir George Horsey, Knight, David Ramsey, Roger Foulke, and Dud Dudley, Esquires, by their hum- ble petition to us lately exhibited, have informed us that there have been divers that have attempted to make iron within this our king- dom of England with sea-coals, pit-coals, peat, and turf, but never obtained unto by any, saving them, the said Sir George Horsey, David Ramsey, Roger Foulke, and Dud Dudley, who have effected it, and with bellows, wind blast, and additaments, and by art to perfect the same to make iron and cast works, and also into bars, whereof they have made many trials and much good iron, and are now assured to make the same in great quantity. And whereas we are also by the said petition further informed that there is much coals and ironstone lost and destroyed in many works of this king- dom aforesaid by overthrowing and overrunning the same, which are fit for the making of the said iron, and may be regained and here- after preserved; and the said Sir George Horsey, David Ramsey, Roger Foulke, and Dud Dudley doubt not to discover mines royal, and other mines holding several metals; they have, therefore, humbly besought us to grant unto them our letters patents of privi- lege for "the making of iron with sea- or pit-coal, peat, or turf, as above said, and with the same to roast, melt, or refine all metals of what nature soever," for the term of fourteen years, with the like powers, privileges, and advantages as are usually granted in our letters patents for mines royal; and that we will be further graciously pleased to grant to them liberty to dig, search, and work the said mines in any lands or grounds, giving the owners such satisfaction as shall be adjudged by two justices of peace adjoining. In con- 198 A PPENDICES sideration whereof, they have humbly offered to pay into our Ex- chequer after the first two years, one hundred marks per annum. Know ye, that we graciously favoring and accepting the good endeavors of our said subjects, of our especial grace, certain know- ledge, and mere motion, have given and granted, and by these presents for us, our heirs, and successors, do give and grant unto them, the said Sir George Horsey, David Ramsey, Roger Foulke, and Dud Dudley, their executors, administrators, and assigns, full, free, and absolute hcense, power, privilege, and authority, that the said Sir George Horsey, David Ramsey, Roger Foulke, and Dud Dudley, and every of them, they and every of their executors, ad- ministrators, and assigns, and they and every of their deputies and substitutes, servants, agents, and workmen, and none other person or persons whomsoever, shall and may from time to time and at all and every time and times hereafter during the term of years here- after mentioned, at their and every of their wills and pleasures, use, exercise, practice, and put in use within our said kingdom of Eng- land and Wales, according to their and every of their own way and invention, the sole making of iron into any sort of cast works with sea- or pit-coals, peat, or turf, and with the same to make the said iron into plate works or bars, and likewise to refine all sorts of metals, at their and every of their wills and pleasures, for their and every of their best profit and advantage. Wherefore our will and pleasure is, and we do hereby, for us, our heirs, and successors, straightly charge and command, prohibit and forbid all and every other person and persons whomsoever of what estate, degree, or condition soever he, they, or any of them shall be, that none of them (other than the said Sir George Horsey, David Ramsey, Roger Foulke, and Dud Dudley, their executors, administrators, deputies, sub- stitutes, workmen, or assigns) do or shall, during the term of years hereinafter mentioned, directly or indirectly use or exercise the making of iron into any sort of cast works, with sea- or pit-coals, peat, or turf, or with the same to make the said iron into plate works or bars, or to refine any sort of metals in our said kingdom or do- minion, after the manner and way by them, the said Sir George Horsey, David Ramsey, Roger Foulke, and Dud Dudley, or any of them, first invented, without the special license and consent of them, the said Sir George Horsey, David Ramsey, Roger Foulke, APPENDICES 199 and Dud Dudley, their executors, administrators, or assigns, first had and obtained; to have, hold, exercise, and enjoy the said licenses, privileges, powers, and authorities, and other the premises before by these presents granted or mentioned to be granted, from the date of these presents, unto the full end and term, and for and during the full term and time of fourteen years from thence next ensuing, and fully to be complete and ended, yielding and paying therefor. And the said Sir George Horsey, David Ramsey, Roger Foulke, and Dud Dudley, for themselves, and every of them, their and every of their executors, administrators, and assigns, and for every of them, do hereby covenant and promise to and with us, our heirs, and successors, by these presents, to yield and pay during the said term unto us, our heirs, and successors, the yearly rent of one hundred marks of good and lawful money of England, at the receipt of the Exchequer of us, our heirs, and successors of this our kingdom of England, at the feasts of St. Michael the Archangel, and the An- nunciation of the blessed Virgin Mary, by even and equal portions; the first payment thereof to begin at the feast of St. Michael the Archangel, which shall be in the year of our Lord God one thousand six hundred and forty. And for the better accomplishment of the premises aforesaid, we do by these presents give full power and authority to them, the said Sir George Horsey, David Ramsey, Roger Foulke, and Dud Dudley, their executors, administrators, and assigns, and every of them, with the assistance of a constable or other officer, at all convenient time and times, to search in all place or places, house or houses in our kingdom or dominion aforesaid, where any just cause of suspicion shall be, for discovery of such as shall use or exercise the making of iron into any sorts of cast works, with sea- or pit-coals, peat, or turf, or with the same to make iron into plate works or bars, or to refine any sort of metals, contrary to our will and pleasure herein declared, and the true intent and meaning of these presents, to the end the deUnquents may be dis- covered and receive condign punishment, according to their demerits. And we do also by these presents will, require, and command all and singular mayors, sheriffs, justices of peace, bailiffs, constables, headboroughs, and other officers, ministers, and subjects of us, our heirs, and successors, of our said kingdom and dominion, whom the same shall concern, that they and every of them be from time 200 APPENDICES to time during the term aforesaid, aiding, helping, furthering, and assisting to them, the said Sir George Horsey, David Ramsey, Roger Foulke, and Dud Dudley, and every of them, their executors, administrators, deputies, agents, workmen, and assigns, and every of them, in all things in [or] about the accomplishment of our plea- sure herein declared, and in the exercise and execution of this our grant; and that they nor any of them do in any wise hinder oi interrupt them, or any of them, concerning the same as they tender our pleasure, and will avoid the contrary at their perils, and these presents, or the enrollment thereof, shall be their sufficient warrant in that behalf. And further know ye, that we of our more especial grace, certain knowledge, mere motion, do also by these presents, for us, our heirs, and successors, give and grant unto the said Sir George Horsey, David Ramsey, Roger Foulke, and Dud Dudley, their executors, administrators, and assigns, full and free hberty, license, power, privilege, and authority, at all times and from time to time during the term of years hereafter in these presents men- tioned, by themselves, or they or any of their deputies, servants, or workmen, or any of them, to dig, open, search, and work, wash, roast, and stamp, and melt all manner of ores or mines of gold, silver, copper, lead holding silver, or mixed with silver and quicksilver, or any of them, within our said kingdom or dominion aforesaid or any part thereof, and for that end and purpose to drain and convey any waters out of or to the said mines for the better working and draining of the mines and pits, or washing of the same, and to try out and convert the said ores, and copper, lead, into any other metal what- soever, and to refine and extract the silver or gold therein contained, and the said copper and lead to reduce and make into any manu- factures whatsoever, to their, and every of their most profit and commodity, and to set up and erect and repair any house or houses, edifices, buildings, mills, and works, for the use and service of the said mines and mineral works, as well within our own manors, lordships, lands, grounds, and possessions, as also within the grounds, lands, and possessions of every or any of our subjects, set, lying, or being within our said kingdom and dominion, or any part thereof, so that the said Sir George Horsey, David Ramsey, Roger Foulke, and Dud Dudley, their executors, administrators, or assigns, shall not by color hereof search or dig, open or work for, in the said APPENDICES 20 1 mines or ores aforesaid, within any our manors, lordships, forests, chases, parks, or any other our lands, grounds, or possessions within our kingdom or dominion aforesaid, or the lordships, manors, lands, grounds, or any the possessions belonging to any our subjects within our said kingdom or dominion, without the good will and consent of us, our heirs, and successors, and the good will of such of the sub- jects of us, our heirs, and successors, as have power to license them so to do ; and also except and always reserved out of these presents aU royal mines, and all other mines whatsoever, in any place or places wheresoever within our said kingdom or dominion, by any the grants or letters patents of us, or any of our progenitors or predecessors, kings or queens of this our kingdom of England, to any person or persons whomsoever formerly granted, and every of them, with all the privileges, profits, and immunities, to them and every of them appertaining and belonging, according to the true intent and meaning of the same; to have and to hold the said mines of gold and silver, copper, lead holding silver, or mixed with silver, quicksilver, and all other metal or ores holding gold or silver, as afore- said, and all and singular other the premises, with their and every of their appurtenances respectively, under the said Sir George Horsey, David Ramsey, Roger Foulke, and Dud Dudley, their executors, administrators, and assigns, from the date of these presents for and during and unto the full end term of one and twenty \sic\ years from thence next ensuing, and fully to complete and ended, yielding and paying therefore yearly and every year. And the said Sir George Horsey, David Ramsey, Roger Foulke, and Dud Dudley, for themselves, their executors, administrators, and assigns, and for every of them, do covenant, promise, and grant to and with us, our heirs, and successors, to peld and pay yearly and every year, after the first two years of the said term hereby granted shall be expired, one full tenth part of all such silver and gold whatsoever, as shall be had or gotten out of the said mines, the same being first refined and reduced into their several species at the proper costs and charges of the said Sir George Horsey, David Ramsey, Roger Foulke, and Dud Dudley, their executors, administrators, or assigns, as aforesaid; and the same tenth part to be yearly and every year after the said first two years, so expired as aforesaid, accounted for upon oath thereof to be made before one or more of the barons 202 APPENDICES of our Exchequer for the time being, at feast of St. Michael the Archangel only, or within thirty days next after; and upon such account, so made and declared as aforesaid, the said tenth part to be dehvered to our use in such manner as shall be appointed by Jhe lord treasurer or chancellor of the Exchequer of us, our heirs, or successors for the time being. And our will and pleasure is, and we do hereby declare our intent and meaning to be that the said Sir George Horsey, David Ramsey, Roger Foulke, and Dud Dudley, their executors, administrators, and assigns, shall make, give, and allow reasonable recompense, satisfaction, and amends to all and every the lords, owners, and occupiers of the lands, ground, and soil for the damage and loss to be sustained in and upon the same grounds, land, and soil, where any such shall happen by reason or means of the said mines or mineral works: And in case the said Sir George Horsey, David Ramsey, Roger Foulke, and Dud Dudley, their executors, administrators, and assigns, and the lords, owners, and occupiers of the said lands, grounds, and soil, cannot agree among themselves for the said damages and loss respectively afore- said, then our will and pleasure is, and we do hereby declare and appoint, that four indiiferent men of the same shire or shires in which such loss and damages shall be suffered, or of the shire or county next adjoining, at the pleasure of the said Sir George Horsey, David Ramsey, Roger Foulke, and Dud Dudley, their executors, administrators, and assigns, to be elected between them, whereof the said Sir George Horsey, David Ramsey, Roger Foulke, and Dud Dudley, their executors, administrators, or assigns, shall nominate two, and the said lord, owner, or occupier of the said soil shall nom- inate other two, shall assess and rate the recompense of or for the same as they in their consciences shall adjudge to be reasonable and sufficient in that behalf; and in case it shall so happen that the said four men so indifferently elected, as aforesaid, cannot agree in the rating and assessing of the recompense aforesaid, then the matter shall be brought before us, our heirs, or successors, and by us or our Privy Council to be heard, and finally determined between them. And for the better furtherance of the same several works respectively, we do by these presents, for us, our heirs, and suc- cessors, give and grant unto the said Sir George Horsey, David Ramsey, Roger Foulke, and Dud Dudley, their executors, ad- APPENDICES 203 ministrators, and assigns, and every of them, full power, license, and authority to take up and hire at reasonable wages and prices to be given in that behalf in any place or places within this our realm of England and dominion of Wales, all manner of artificers, laborers, and workmen not at that time hired or employed in any other of our mines royal, and all manner of corn and victuals, timber, wood, underwood, coal, turfs, peats, fuel, horses, oxen, carts, carriages, tools, and instruments, and to have convenient ways and free pass- ages with ingress, egress, and regress for servants, workmen, horses, oxen, carts, and carriages, with all necessaries whatsoever, into, through, and from all manner of grounds through which it shall be convenient and expedient for their better ease, and the good and benefit of the said several and respective works as aforesaid, and shall be fit and convenient to be occupied and employed in or about the draining all manner of grounds through which it should be con- venient for the better ease and the good and benefit of the said several and respective works, as aforesaid, as shall be fit and convenient to be occupied and employed about the draining and conveying of waters, digging, opening, washing, stamping, roasting, and melting out the mines and ores aforesaid, paying reasonably for the same, and upon any difference for the prices thereof, to be determined in such sort as is in like case before in these presents limited and appointed for recompense to be given to the lords, owners, or occupiers of the soil, as aforesaid. And our further will and pleasure is, and the said Sir George Horsey, David Ramsey, Roger Foulke, and Dud Dudley, for themselves, their executors, administrators, and as- signs, and for every of them, do by these presents covenant, promise, and agree to and with us, our heirs, and successors, that they and every of them shall and will, every six months, after the two first years of the said term of one and twenty \sic\ years hereby granted shall be expired as aforesaid, bring and deliver, or cause to be brought and delivered, into the mint of us, our heirs, and successors, in our Tower of London, or elsewhere within this our realm of England, all the gold and silver which shall be found in the said mines, or any of them, they and every of them receiving upon the delivery thereof such price in ready money as gold and silver of the like fineness is worth and shall be then usually given for the like. And for the more secure and safe conveyance of the said gold and 204 APPENDICES silver into our mint, as aforesaid, our will and pleasure is, and we do by these presents, for us, our heirs, and successors, give and grant unto the said Sir George Horsey, David Ramsey, Roger Foulke, and Dud Dudley, their executors, administrators, and assigns, and every of them, full and free liberty, power, and authority, at all times and from time to time during the said term hereby granted after the first two years shall be so expired as aforesaid, to set and stamp, or cause to be set and stamped, our arms upon all the gold and silver to be conveyed to our mint as aforesaid, thereby to distinguish it from other gold and silver, and to make known that the same is especially appointed for us and for our service. And to the intent as well the said tenth part of the said gold and silver refined and reduced into their several species aforesaid as the said tenth part may from time to time hereafter be to us, our heirs, and successors, duly answered, paid, and dehvered according to the true meaning of these presents as aforesaid, our will and pleasure is, and the said Sir George Horsey, David Ramsey, Roger Foulke, and Dud Dudley, for themselves, their executors, administrators, and assigns, and for every of them, do covenant, promise, and agree, to and with us, our heirs, and successors, that they, and every of them, in the said works shall and will, once in every year, according to the tenor and true meaning of these presents, that is to say, at the feast of St. Michael the Archangel yearly, or within thirty days next after the same feast, render and yield up a true and just ac- count, upon oath, before one or more of the barons of the Exchequer of us, our heirs, and successors, for the time being, according to the course of the said court, of all such gold and silver as shall be then had or gotten out of the said mines as aforesaid, and thereupon shall and will dehver one fuU tenth part thereof, refined and reduced into their several species as aforesaid to our use, in such manner as by our treasurer of England, or the chancellor and under- treasurer of our Exchequer for the time being shall be appointed in that be- half; provided always, that if the said yearly rent or sum of one hun- dred marks to us, our heirs, and successors, before, in, and by these presents reserved as aforesaid, shall happen to be behind and unpaid by the space of forty days next after either of the said feasts, in which the same ought to be paid as aforesaid; or, if the said Sir George Horsey, David Ramsey, Roger Foulke, and Dud Dudley, APPENDICES 205 or any of them, they or any of their executors, adnunistrators, or assigns, shall not enroll or cause to be enrolled this our present grant before the clerk of the Pipe for the time being of our kingdom aforesaid within the space of six months after the date of these presents, that then the said Sir George Horsey, David Ramsey, Roger Foulke, and Dud Dudley, their executors, administrators, and assigns, shall forfeit and pay unto us, our heirs, and successors, as well the sum of twenty pounds of current money for every month in which the said rent shall happen to be behind and unpaid next after the said forty days, as aforesaid; and also the sum of twenty pounds in name of a pain for every six months' default of the en- rollment of these presents before the said clerk of the Pipe as afore- said. And lastly, if at any time during the said term of fourteen years, it shall appear unto us, our heirs, or successors, or unto the lords and others of our Privy Council, that this our grant concerning the privilege aforesaid shall be inconvenient or prejudicial to the commonwealth, then upon signification and declaration to be made by us, our heirs, or successors, or by the lords and others of our Privy Council, or six of them for the time being, in writing under their hands, of such prejudice or inconvenience, these our letters patents as to the privilege shall forthwith cease, determine, and be utterly void and of none effect, anything in these presents contained to the contrary thereof in any wise notwithstanding. And lastly, we will and by these presents for us, our heirs, and successors, do grant that these our letters patents, or the enrollment thereof, shall be and shall be taken, adjudged, construed, and deemed to be firm, good, effectual, and available in the law, to the intents and pur- poses aforesaid; and that the same shall be taken, adjudged, pleaded, and allowed most strongly against us, our heirs, and suc- cessors, and most benignly and beneficially to and for the said Sir George Horsey, David Ramsey, Roger Foulke, and Dud Dudley, their executors, administrators, and assigns, as well in any of our courts of record as elsewhere, within this our realm of England and domain of Wales, according to the true intent and meaning of the same, notwithstanding the not reciting or not true or certain reciting of the shires, counties, or any other place or places, in which the said mines within our kingdom and dominion aforesaid are to be found; and notwithstanding the not reciting of any proclamation or pro- 206 APPENDICES clamations heretofore by us, or our late royal father published, touching or concerning the premises, or any part thereof; and not- withstanding any grant or grants heretofore made by our said late father or the late Queen Elizabeth, or by us, or any matter or thing whatsoever contained in the said grant or grants, or any of them; and notwithstanding any statute or statutes, act, ordinance, pro- vision, or restriction, or any other defect in not rightly naming the names, kinds, quantities, or qualities of the said premises, or any part thereof, or any other incertainty, defect, imperfection, or any other matter or thing whatosever to the contrary hereof in any wise notwithstanding. Although express mention, &c. In witness, &c. Witness ourself at Westminster, the second day of May. Per breve de private sigillo, &c. w PATENT TO JONES AND PALMER FOR HARD AND SOFT SOAP, 1623 James, by the grace of God, &c., to all to whom these presents shall come, greeting. Whereas we, by our letters patents, bearing date the tenth day of February now last past, for the considerations therein expressed, for us, our heirs, and successors, did give and grant unto our well be- loved subjects Roger Jones and Andrew Palmer, their executors, administrators, and assigns, full and free liberty, Ucense, power, privi- lege, and authority that they, the said Roger Jones and Andrew Palmer, their executors, administrators, and assigns, and none other, by themselves, their deputies, servants, factors, or workmen, should or might at all and every time and times thereafter, and from time to time, during the term of twenty and one years next ensuing the date of the said letters patents, at their own proper costs and charges, use, exercise, practice, and put in use within our said realms of England and Ireland, and dominion of Wales, and our town of Berwick, at their liberty and pleasure, the mistery, art, way, means, and trade of " making of hard soap with the material called barilla, and without the use of any fire in the boiling and making thereof, and also of making of soft soap without the use of fire in the boiling thereof," with such privileges and clauses as in said letters patents are con- tained and may more at large appear: And whereas since the grant- ing of the said letters patents the said Roger Jones and Andrew Palmer, and such others, their assistants, as by great expense and travail have aided and assisted them in perfecting the said invention, have found out and added to their former invention many particu- lars conducing much to the profitableness and perfection of the work, both in the use of native and home commodities of this king- dom in the working and composition of the said soaps, and thereby in sparing and saving many thousands yearly which are now ex- pended on foreign commodities bought and brought from beyond the seas, and employed here in the making of soap in the maimer 208 APPENDICES now ordinarily used; and especially the said Roger Jones and An- drew Palmer and their assistants have found out the way of making and preparing of ashes of bean- straw and pea-straw, and of inland kelp and English barilla, and other vegetables fit and serviceable for the making of soap which otherwise would be of Uttle or no benefit to the kingdom, but being thus used and employed will save the ex- pense of many thousands yearly which are now expended on foreign commodities to the lessening of the stock and treasure of the realms, which in our regal prudence for the public weal of our people we are bound to be vigilant and careful of. Forasmuch as such profitable inventions are not at once and at the first brought to their full perfec- tion, we hold it fit in justice and honor to give all encouragement to such our loving subjects as shall employ their travails, industries, and purses to the furthering of the common good, and to reward them to the full with the fruits of their own labors; and forasmuch also as the said Roger Jones and Andrew Palmer have now approved their inventions and skill to be such as deserveth encouragement, their soap, made [ ] the material of our own kingdom only, being found to be as sweet and good as the best soft soap now already made, and to extend further in the use thereof, as they in the behalf of themselves and their assistants have also made offer unto us to respect our own particular profit, in such measure as that the loss we may receive in our customs and other duties by the not importing of foreign com- modities for the making of soap as in former times, shall by their industries be recommended unto us, our heirs, and successors, in certainty with good advantage; and our loving subjects, who have long complained of the bad and stinking soap now ordinarily in use, shall have good, sweet, and serviceable soap for their money, and yet shall not have the price thereof raised upon them above the usual rate of the best sweet soap now made and sold by the soap-boilers. Know ye, that we, for the considerations aforesaid, of our especial grace, certain knowledge, and mere motion, have given and granted, and by these presents, for us, our heirs, and successors, do give and grant unto the said Roger Jones and Andrew Palmer on the behalf of themselves and their assistants, full and free Uberty, Ucense, power, privilege, and authority that they, the said Roger Jones and Andrew Palmer, their executors, administrators, and assigns, by themselves or their deputies, servants, factors, or workmen, and none APPENDICES 209 Other, shall and may at all and every time and times hereafter, and from time to time during the term of twenty and one years next en- suing the date of these presents, at their own proper costs and charges, use, exercise, practice, and put in use, within our said realms of England and Ireland and dominion of Wales, and our town of Ber- wick, at their liberty and pleasure, the mistery, art, way, and means of making of hard soap and soft soap, as well with the materials and in such manner as in the said former letters patents are expressed, as also of burning and preparing of bean-straw, pea-straw, kelp, fern, and other vegetables to be found in our own dominions, into ordinary ashes or into potashes, and with the said materials of the ashes of bean- or pea-straw, and kelp, fern, and all other vegetables "whatso- ever not formerly and ordinarily used or practiced within these our realms and dominions to make soap hard or soft, at their will and pleasure, and in such way or form as they have invented or devised; and also of the using of the assay glass for trying of their lye and making of hard and soft soap by their said new inventions, in the way of making of the said soaps by sundry motions, and not boiling of the same with the expense of much fuel, in such sort as was formerly accustomed by such as now usually make soap in and about our city of London and elsewhere in our said dominions; and further, to set up in any place or places within our said realms of England and Ireland, and dominion of Wales, or town of Berwick, any house or houses, vessels, or engines whatsoever fit and necessary for the putting in use and practice of the said mistery, art, way, means, or trade of making of hard and soft soap by all or any the materials aforesaid, and by their said new inventions and motions for the making thereof as aforesaid, and the same so made to utter and sell in gross or by retail or otherwise to transport, and do away at their free will and pleasure for their best commodity and profit; and to the end that this our pleasure may be the better effected, and the said Roger Jones and Andrew Palmer may the more fully enjoy the benefit of this our grant, we will, and for us, our heirs, and successors, do straightly charge, inhibit, and command, and do also of our especial grace, certain knowledge, and mere motion, for us, our heirs, and successors, grant to the said Roger Jones and Andrew Palmer, their executors, administrators, and assigns, that no person or persons whatsoever bom within any our realms or dominions, nor any other 2IO APPENDICES person or persons whatsoever, either denizens or strangers bom in any foreign realm or country whatsoever, of what estate, degree, or condition soever he or they be or shall be, other than the said Roger Jones and Andrew Palmer, their executors, administrators, and assigns, or such as shall by them or some of them be set on work or authorized, shall or may, at any time or times during the said term of one and twenty years hereby granted or mentioned, or intended to be granted, practice, use, exercise, or put in use the said mistery, art, way, means, or trade of making the said hard or soft soaps with any the materials aforesaid, or by using of the assay glass for trying of their lye, or by the ways, inventions, or means hereinbefore men- tioned, or to set up, make, or use any house or houses, vessels, engine or engines, for or concerning the use of the said arts, misteries, or inventions, or any of them, within our said realms of England and Ireland and dominion of Wales, or town of Berwick, or in any place or places within our said realms or dominions, or any of them, or to make or bum any ashes or potashes of the materials aforesaid for the making of soap upon pain of forfeiture to us, our heirs, and successors, of the said hard soap and soft soap or ashes so to be made contrary to the true intent and meaning of these presents, and to have the said assay glass or glasses for trying their lye, and the said vessels, engines, and devices utterly pulled down and defaced, and also upon pain of our high indignation and displeasure, and such further pains, penal- ties, and imprisonments as by any our laws or statutes of this our realm of England, or by our prerogative royal, can or may be in- flicted upon the offenders for their disobedience in contemning our royal commands in this behalf. And to the end it may the better appear when any such soap shall be made contrary to the tme intent and meaning of these presents and for the better execution of this our grant, we do by these presents, for us, our heirs, and successors, give and grant full liberty, power, and authority unto the said Roger Jones and Andrew Palmer, their executors, administrators, and assigns, that a stamp or stamps, seal or seals, to be engraven with a rose and crown, shall be stamped, sealed, or marked on all the soaps by them or any of them to be made in manner and form before de- clared, the better to distinguish their said soap from all counterfeit soap, either hard or soft, made or to be made by any person or per- sons contrary to the true intent and meaning of these presents or of APPENDICES 211 the letters patents before recited, which seal or stamp so to be made as aforesaid we do by these presents will and command be set upon the hard soap, and upon the firkins, barrels, and other vessels con- taining the said soft soap so to be made, and shall not be set upon soaps hard or soft made by any other person or persons whatsoever contrary to the true intent of these presents, but shall be set and fixed only upon such soap as shall be from time to time made by the said Roger Jones and Andrew Palmer, their executors, administrators, or assigns, according as is hereinbefore set down, and no other; and further, we do by these presents grant that it shall and may be lawful to and for the said Roger Jones and Andrew Palmer, their executors, administrators, or assigns, or any of them, by himself or themselves, or by his, their, or any of their deputies, factors, or servants, at any time or times convenient, and from time to time during the said term of one and twenty years, with assistance of a constable or some other officer, to enter into all and everyplace and places, house and houses, where they or any of them shall have any just cause to suspect any such hard soap or soft soap, or soap- ashes, or potashes, to be made or endeavored to be made or stamped or sealed, or to be sold or uttered or set to sale, contrary to the true intent and meaning of these pre- sents or of the letters patents before recited, or any vessels, engines, or instruments to be erected, framed, or used contrary to the true meaning hereof, to be or remain within our said realrns or dominion, as well within hberties as without, and there carefully and diUgently to try and search by all lawful ways and means for all such hard soaps and soft soaps and potashes and other ashes, hereby granted, made, or to be made as aforesaid, and for all such vessels, engines, or instruments as by any other person or persons whatsoever shall, during or within the term before granted, be made, erected, or set up, or used, contrary to the true meaning of these our letters patents, and finding any such, to seize the said hard soaps and soft soaps, and potashes, and other ashes hereby granted so made to the use of us, our heirs, and successors, the one half whereof we do hereby for us, our heirs, and successors, give and grant unto the said Roger Jones and Andrew Palmer, their executors, administrators, and assigns, and to deface and pull down the said furnaces, vessels^ engines, and instru- ments so erected and used; to have and to hold, perceive, use, exer- cise, and enjoy all and' singular the aforesaid hberties, privileges, 212 APPENDICES grants, and authorities and other the premises, unto the said Roger Jones and Andrew Palmer, their executors, administrators, and assigns, immediately from and after the date of these presents, for and during the term of twenty and one years from thence next ensu- ing, and fully to be complete and ended. And forasmuch as the public having an interest herein, which by the enhancing of the prices of the commodities aforesaid may be prejudiced and damnified, our will and pleasure is, and we do hereby straightly charge and com- mand that they the said Roger Jones and Andrew Palmer, their executors, administrators, and assigns, or any other person or per- sons by them to be authorized for the making of the said hard soap or soft soap, shall not, at any time during the said term of one and twenty years, sell, or cause to be sold, the said hard soap or soft soap, by them or any of them to be made as aforesaid, at any higher or dearer rates and prices than hard soap and soft soap of the best sorts and kinds were most usually sold for, within the space of seven years now last past before the date of these presents. And further, we do hereby charge and command all and singular justices of peace, mayors, sheriffs, constables, headboroughs, comptrollers, customers, searchers, waiters, and all other ofiicers and ministers to whom it shall or may appertain, to be aiding and assisting in all lawful and convenient manner unto the said Roger Jones and Andrew Palmer, their executors, administrators, deputies, and assigns, in the due execution of these our letters patents as they tender our pleasure and will avoid our indignation and displeasure in the contrary. And we do further hereby command that the said Roger Jones and Andrew Palmer, their executors, administrators, and assigns, do carefully and diligently endeavor themselves that the intent and true meaning of these our letters patents be justly observed, and if in the execution thereof they or any of them shall find any resistance, that they or some of them do certify the same into the Court of Exchequer of us, our heirs, and successors, to the end the offenders therein may receive condign punishment for the same their offences, unto which Court of Exchequer we do hereby, for us, our heirs, and successors, give power and authority, upon such certificate made as aforesaid, and due proof thereof made, to inflict such punishment and im- prisonment, or either of them, upon the offenders, as their offences shall deserve, or to the said court shall be thought meet. And lastly, APPENDICES 213 we do hereby, for us, our heirs, and successors, grant that these our letters patents, or the enrollment thereof, shall be in all things firm, good, available, and effectual in the law, according to the true mean- ing of the same, as well in our courts as elsewhere within our said realms and dominions, without any confirmation or further Ucense or toleration to be in any wise procured or obtained, although express mention, &c. In witness whereof, &c. Witness ourself at Westminster, the three and twentieth day of February. Per breve de privato sigillo, &c. PATENT TO SIR ROBERT MANSELL, FOR GLASS, 1624 James, by the grace of God, &c. To all to whom these presents shall come, greeting. Whereas, in and by our letters patents sealed with our great seal of England, bearing date at Westminster, the nineteenth day of January, in the twelfth year of our reign of England, France, and Ireland, and of Scotland the eight and fortieth, it is (amongst other things) mentioned that we, taking into our consideration the daily waste and decay of timber and wood within our realms of England and Wales and the dominions of the same, insomuch as where, thentofore, this our kingdom was furnished and adorned with goodly quantities of the same, not only for the navies and inhabit- ants thereof, for their continual use and comfort, and for store and provision against all occasions and accidents, but also to serve and supply foreign parts with the same in great plenty, and that then of late contrariwise the continual consumption of the same, and that many times in superfluous and unnecessary things, did both increase intolerably the rates and prices of timber, wood, and fuel, in an excessive and unreasonable manner, and also threaten an utter want and scarcity thereof, so much that then our subjects of this king- dom of late years had been forced to use timber, firewood, and fuel brought from foreign parts, whereby great damage in time to come did grow to our realm and subjects of this kingdom for want of necessary provision, as well for making and repairing of ships (be- ing the principal defence of this our kingdom) as also for conven- ient buildings and firewood in all places, if convenient remedy, ac- cording to the good poh'cy of state, were not in time provided. And that we were therefore moved out of our especial care of the future good of this our kingdom, not only to make provision for the preservation and increase of timber and wood by good laws and ordinances, but also to embrace all profitable and beneficial devices, projects, and inventions that might tend to the furthering thereof, so that per- APPENDICES 2 1 5 ceiving glass-works and working of glasses with timber and wood to be one of the greatest and chiefest means to consume and de- stroy timber and wood. Whereas, thentofore we had given and granted license unto Sir Jerome Bowes, Knight, within our realms of England and Ireland to use the art and feat of making drinking- glasses and other glasses for a certain time and term in the said recited letters patents expressed, and thereby had prohibited all others to make the said glasses, upon the express proviso and con- dition that we, our heirs, and successors, might frustrate, deter- mine, and make void the said recited letters patents of license in such case as in the same letters patents is expressed. And that after- wards, by our letters patents under the great seal of England, we did also give and grant the Uke Ucense to make drinking- glasses and other glasses unto Sir Percival Hart, Knight, and Edward Foncett, Esquire, from the expiration or determination of the said Sir Jerome Bowes his patent, for and during the term and space of one and twenty years thence next ensuing. And that also by the Uke letters patents under our great seal of England we did grant Ucense unto Edward Salter, Esquire, to use the art of making aU manner of drinking- glasses and other glasses and glass-works not .prohibited by the former letters patents, as by the said several letters patents appeared. And it is also in and by our said letters patents, bearing date the said nineteenth day of January, in the said twelfth year of our reign of England, mentioned that we then lately having certain notice and perfect knowledge that the said several recited letters patents of licenses were grown very hurtful and prejudicial unto this our realm, there being then lately presented unto us by Thomas Percival, Es- quire, a project of new invention for the making of all manner of glasses with pit-coal and other fuel, not being timber or wood, nor made of timber and wood, which we had then been slow to beUeve until, at the great charge of the said Thomas Percival, the same was brought to perfection, as plainly appeared by manifest and demonstrative experience in and by the several furnaces then lately erected and built by the said first inventor, Thomas Percival, and his partners. And it is further mentioned in and by the said letters patents, bearing date the said nineteenth day of January, that for- asmuch as the use and exercise of the liberty and authority, by the said three former recited letters patents mentioned to be granted. 2 1 6 APPENDICES were grown hurtful and prejudicial to the commonweal, and the prejudice of them was likely daily to increase unless some provis- ion thereof were made, whereupon the said letters patents were become void in law, and to be overthrown by ordinary course of law in such cases used. We did by the same letters patents, bear- ing date the said nineteenth day of January, express and declare that we did not purpose to take upon us the defence or protection of any the said letters patents, or of anything in any of them mentioned to be granted; and that such course should, from time to time, be had and used against all persons that should take upon them to use or exercise any power, privilege, or liberty, by pretext or color of any the said letters patents, as our laws in such case should permit and require, with this, that for the preservation of wood and timber we did purpose to take such course for the general restraint of our people from the making of glass with wood or timber as should be agreeable to the good of our people and the state of the commonwealth. And it is also mentioned in and by our said let- ters patents, bearing date the said nineteenth day of January, in the said twelfth year of our reign of England, that we (for the con- siderations therein expressed) did give and grant unto our right trusty and right well beloved cousin, Philip Earl of Montgomery, and to our right trusty and right well beloved cousin, Thomas Vis- count Andever, by the name of our trusty and well beloved sub- ject and servant Sir Thomas Hayward, Knight, and to our trusty and well beloved subjects and servants Sir Robert Mansell, Knight, Sir Edward Zouch, Knight, Sir Thomas Tracy, Knight, Thomas Hayes, Esquire, Bevis Thelwall, Thomas Percival, and Robert Kellaway, their deputies, and assigns, full and free license, power, privilege, and authority, that they and every of them, their and every of their executors, administrators, assigns-, deputies, servants, workmen, factors, and agents, should and might, from time to time, and at all times thereafter during the term and space of one and twenty years next and immediately ensuing the date of the said letters patents, at their and every of their wills and pleasures, use, exercise, practice, set up, and put in use the art, mistery, and feat of melting and making of all manner of drinking- glasses, broad glasses, window-glasses, looking-glasses, and all other kind of glass, glasses, bugles, bottles, vials, or vessels whatsoever made of glass, APPENDICES 217 of any fashion, stuff, matter, or metal whatsoever thentofore used and thenafter to be devised or used in this our realm of England and Wales, and the dominions thereof, or elsewhere, with sea-coal, pit-coal, or any other fuel whatsoever, not being timber or wood, nor made of timber or wood, in and throughout this our realm of England and Wales, and the dominions thereof, and within every or any part of the same, and elsewhere within any of our kingdoms and dominions, yielding and paying therefor yearly during the said term and time of one and twenty years unto us, our heirs, and suc- cessors, the annual or yearly rent, farm, or sum of one thousand pounds of lawful money of England; and it is also mentioned in our said letters patents, bearing date the said nineteenth day of January, that we did thereby grant that no person or persons what- soever, other than the said PhiUp Earl of Montgomery, Sir Thomas Hayward, Sir Robert Mansell, Sir Edward Zouch, Sir Thomas Tracy, Thomas Hayes, Bevis Thelwall, Thomas Percival, and Robert Kellaway, their executors, administrators, deputies, as- signs, agents, factors, and servants, should, at any time thereafter during the said term of one and twenty years, import or bring into our said realm of England and Wales, or the dominions thereof, or to any part or parcel thereof, out of or from any realm or for- eign part any manner or kind of glass or glasses whatsoever be- fore in the said letters patents mentioned, of what metal, stuff, or fashion soever they were, nor directly or indirectly buy or contract for any kind or sort of glass made beyond the sea, or in any place out of this realm of England and Wales, or the dominions thereof, nor sell or utter any such, as by the said letters patents amongst divers grants, powers, privileges, and other things therein contained more at large appeareth. Now, forasmuch as the said Sir Robert Mansell by agreement and contract with the rest of the said patentees, taking upon him- self the exercise and execution of the said letters patents of privi- lege, was charged and burdened with the payment not only of the said yearly rent of one thousand pounds, but with sundry other great yearly payments unto divers others that were interested in the said patent of privilege, all which payments did amount unto, in the whole, the sum of two thousand and eight hundred pounds by the year at the least, and in respect thereof could not utter and sell 2 1 8 APPENDICES the glasses made by virtue of the said patent of privilege for such moderate prices as was fitting for our subjects, and in respect thereof, and because all importation of glass made, as well in any other of our own dominions as in the dominions of any foreign princes or states, was by the said letters patents of privilege prohibited and restrained, the said letters patents of privilege, bearing date the said nineteenth day of January, did grow hurtful and prejudicial to the commonweal, and accordingly the same were complained of in the last convention of Pariiament as a grievance so as the said letters patents bearing date the said nineteenth day of January, in respect of the prejudice thereby accruing to the commonwealth are become void in law, and to be overthrown by the ordinary course of law in such cases used. Know ye, that we, taking the premises into our gracious and prince- ly consideration, do hereby declare that insomuch as the said letters patents bearing date the said nineteenth day of January, and other the letters patents before mentioned and recited, did become pre- judicial to the public, and the execution of them grievous to our loving subjects, that we will not hereafter take upon us the defence or protection of any the said letters patents, or of anything in any of them mentioned to be granted. And that such course shall and may from time to time be had and used against all persons that shall hereafter take upon them to use or exercise any power, privilege, or hberty, by pretext or color of any the said letters patents, as our laws in such case shall permit or require; and yet nevertheless, upon deliberate advice with the lords and others of our Privy Council, and at the humble petition of the said Sir Robert Mansell, setting forth that the making of glass of all kinds within this kingdom with sea-coal and pit-coal was brought to a full and exact perfection for the use and good of our kingdom with the expense of his whole for- tune, and upon due consideration of the many and faithful services of the said Sir Robert Mansell, and finding by the petitions and certificates of the glass-sellers, looking-glass-makers, glaziers, and spectacle-makers in and near our city of London, made and cer- tified, some of them to the Commons in the last convention of Par- liament, and the rest unto the lords commissioners by us appointed to take consideration of the business of glass-works, that the glass made by the said Sir Robert Mansell was perfectly good, clear. APPENDICES 219 merchantable, or rather better glass than formerly was made with wood, and that there was sufficient store made not only to serve England, but also to serve other countries if need were; we are pleased and resolved and do hold it most requisite and necessary for the good and benefit of this realm, that the making of glass with sea-coal and pit-coal be continued, and that all making of glass with wood for ever hereafter shall cease, and the privilege for sole making thereof with sea-coal and pit-coal shall be re- newed to the said Sir Robert Mansell, not only as a token of our grace and favor towards him for his many and well deserving services, but as a recompense for the great charge and expense which for upholding and bringing of that work to full perfection he hath disbursed, to the weakening of his estate, but yet without any restraint of the importation of foreign glass, and without burden of rent or otherwise which might occasion the enhancing of prices to our subjects, whereby all just grievances shall be taken away by our own loss of the annual rent, which upon the said for- mer letters patents was reserved unto us. Know ye further, that we, as well for and in consideration of the good and faithful service done unto us by the said Sir Robert Mansell, our vice-admiral of England, as also of the great pains, charges, hazard, disbursement, and expense of great sums of money and o'her detriments which the said Sir Robert Mansell hath undergone and been at, in and about the said work of making of glass with sea-coal, and for other good causes and considerations as hereunto moving, of our espe- cial grace, certain knowledge, and mere motion, have given and granted, and by these presents, for us, our heirs, and successors, do give and grant unto the said Sir Robert Mansell, his executors, administrators, and assigns, full and free liberty, license, power, and authority, that he, the said Sir Robert Mansell, his executors, administrators, assigns, deputies, servants, workmen, factors, and agents, shall and may from time to time and at all times hereafter during the term of years hereafter in these presents mentioned, at his and their and every of their wills and pleasure, use, exercise, practice, set up, and put in use the art, feat, and mistery of melt- ing and making of all manner of drinking-glasses, broad glasses, window-glasses, looking-glasses, and all other kind of glass, glasses, bugles, bottles, vials, or vessels whatsoever made of glass of any 2 20 APPENDICES fashion, stuff, matter, or metal whatsoever heretofore used or here- after to be devised or used in this our realm of England and Wales, and the dominions thereof, or elsewhere, with sea- coal, pit- coal, or of any other fuel whatsoever, not being timber or wood, nor being made; of timber or wood, in and throughout this our realm of England and Wales, and the dominions thereof, and within every or any part of them or any of them, and to make, erect, and set up as many furnaces, engines, structures, and devices for that intent and purpose and in as many places of our said realm and dominions as he or they shall think fit, agreeing with the owners of the soil for the same; and the glass and glasses, bugles, bottles, vials, and vessels so made to utter or sell in gross, or by retail, or otherwise to do away at his, and their, or any of their, free will and pleasure, to his, and their, profit and commodity during all the said term hereinafter mentioned: And that he, the said Sir Robert Mansell, his executors, administrators, and assigns, and his and their deputies, servants, workmen, and agents, having Ucense from the said Sir Robert Mansell, his exe- cutors, administrators, or assigns, shall and may from time to time during the said term have and enjoy the sole trade of making and melting aU manner of drinking-glasses, broad glasses, window- glasses, looking-glasses, and all other kinds of glass, glasses, bugles, bottles, vials, or vessels in form aforesaid, and that no other during the said term shall or may use or practice the art or feat of mak- ing or melting of any glass with timber or wood, nor with pit-coal or sea-coal, or other fuel, not being timber or wood, nor made of timber or wood; to have, hold, use, exercise, practice, and put in use the said hcense, liberty, privilege, authority, and immunity, of and for melting and making of all and aU manner of drinking- glasses, broad glasses, window-glasses, looking-glasses, and all other kind of glass, glasses, bugles, bottles, vials, and vessels whatsoever with sea-coal, pit-coal, and other fuel, not being timber or wood, nor made of timber or wood, in all parts and places within our said kingdom and dominions, unto the said Sir Robert Mansell, his execu- tors, administrators, deputies, and assigns, and their, and every of their, servants, workmen, factors, and agents, for and during the whole term, and to the full end and determination of fifteen years next ensuing the date of these our letters patents fully to be complete and ended, freely and absolutely, without any rent, account, sum, APPENDICES 221 or sums, of money, reckoning, allowance, or any other thing what- soever, to us, our heirs, or successors, to be therefor paid, made, given, answered, or done, in any manner of wise. And to the end the said Sir Robert Mansell, his executors and assigns, may receive, perceive, and have, such benefit, profit, and commodity, as we intend unto them, by this our grant, and as the perfection of so great a work with such care and hazard deserveth, and for the better encourag- ing of him and them to reduce the said business to a further per- fection, we do hereby expressly declare and signify our royal plea- sure to be, and we do strictly charge, inhibit, and command, all and every other, our loving subjects, and all and every other per- son and persons of what estate, degree, or condition they, or any of them be, that they presume not nor attempt by any art, act, or device whatsoever, directly or indirectly, to make any manner or kind of drinking-glasses, broad glasses, window-glasses, looking- glasses, or any other kind of glass, glasses, bugles, bottles, vials, or vessels whatsoever, made of glass, as aforesaid, with sea-coal, pit-coal, or any other fuel, not being timber or wood, nor made of timber or wood, at any time during the said term without the spe- cial consent and license in writing of the said Sir Robert Mansell, his executors, administrators, or assigns, but that the full and whole benefit and profit of making of all and all kinds of glass and glasses whatsoever, as aforesaid, with pit-coal, sea-coal, and other fuel, not being timber or wood, nor made of timber or wood, within every part of our said kingdom and dominions, shall be and remain dur- ing all the said time and term to the sole and only behoof, dispo- sition, and use of the said Sir Robert Mansell, his executors, ad- ministrators, deputies, and assigns, and to none other person or persons whatsoever. And we do further by these presents straightly charge, command, and prohibit, and do signify our royal wiU and pleasure to be, that no person or persons whatsoever, of what estate, degree, or condition soever they, or any of them, be, other than the said Sir Robert Mansell, his executors, administrators, deputies, and assigns, and such as shall be Hcensed, authorized, and set on work by him or them, or any of them, do, shall, or may, at any time hereafter, during the term of years before mentioned, practice, erect, or set up, by any ways or means, the said art and feat of making of any kind of glass or glasses, bugles, bottles, vials, or vessels whatsoever. 2 22 APPENDICES or any furnace or furnaces for making thereof within our said king- dom and dominions upon pain of our heavy displeasure and due punishment for the contempt of our royal command in that be- half. And we do by these presents give and grant unto the said Sir Robert Mansell, his executors, administrators, and assigns, de- puties, factors, and agents, and every of them, full power, liberty, and authority, from time to time, and at all times during the said term, by all lawful ways and means, to search, try, and find out all offences and acts committed and done contrary to the true in- tent and meaning of these our letters patents, and likewise for us, our heirs, and successors, we do hereby of our especial grace, cer- tain knowledge, and mere motion, give and grant unto the said Sir Robert Mansell, his executors, administrators, deputies, assigns, factors, agents, and servants, free power, liberty, license, and author- ity to utter and sell in gross or by retail such kind of glass or glasses, before mentioned, as shall be made by virtue of these our letters patents. And if he or they shall have more than will serve us and the subjects of us, our heirs, and successors, that then he, and they, and such others as shall buy the glasses made as aforesaid of him or them or any of them, to transport and carry over into foreign parts, so many and so much thereof as they shall think fit, paying unto us, our heirs, and successors, the customs due to be paid for the same, and leaving sufficient quantity for us, our heirs, and suc- cessors, and our or their subjects at reasonable prices. And we do further, for us, our heirs, and successors, will and grant by these presents that our treasurer, chancellor, and barons of the Exche- quer for the time being, or any of them, by force of this our grant, or the enrollment thereof in our Court of Exchequer from time to time and at all times hereafter during the said term upon the re- quest of the said Sir Robert Mansell, his executors, administra- tors, assigns, or agents, shall grant, make, and direct under the seal of our said Court of Exchequer such and so many writ and writs, close or patent, unto such mayors, bailiffs, sheriffs, customers, comp- trollers, searchers, and other officers of us, our heirs, and successors, in such shires, counties, cities, towns, boroughs, and other places what- soever within our said realm of England and Wales and the dominions thereof, as the said Sir Robert Mansell, his executors, or assigns, shall at any time and from time to time require, thereby charging APPENDICES 223 and commanding the said officers and every of them diligently and carefully to inquire, try, search, and find out all and every per- son and persons as, contrary to the true intent and meaning of these our letters patents, shall, at any time during the said term, make, utter, or sell any such kind of glasses whatsoever hereinbe- fore mentioned, or build, make, erect, use, or set up, or cause to be builded, made, erected, or set up, any such furnace or furnaces, structures, engines, or devices, for the melting or making of any the sorts or kinds of glass or glasses before mentioned until they under- stand the pleasure of our said treasurer, chancellor, and barons of our said Court of Exchequer in that behalf, and further order by them taken therein. And we do hereby, for us, our heirs, and successors, will and command the treasurer, chancellor, and barons of the Ex- chequer for the time being, and every of them, that they, or any of them, upon complaint made by the said Sir Robert Mansell, his executors, administrators, or assigns in that behalf, do all that in justice they may, as well for the demolishing of the said furnaces, structures, engines, and devices, set up or devised contrary to the true intent of these presents, as for the apprehension and lawful punishment of such as shall offend against any part of these our letters patents. And for the better execution of this our grant, we do hereby, for us, our heirs, and successors, give and grant full power, license, and authority unto the said Sir Robert Mansell, his executors, deputies, and assigns, by himself or themselves, or his or their agents, factors, or servants, with the assistance of some officer appointed for preservation of the peace, to enter into jany glass-house or glass-houses, and other place or places whatsoever, within any part of any of our kingdoms and dominions, as well -within hberties as without, where any such furnaces, structures, engines, or devices shall be made or set up contrary to the true intent of these presents, or where any glasses made contrary to the privilege hereby granted shall probably and reasonably be sus- pected to be, and there by all lawful ways and convenient means to try and search for all and all manner and kind of any the glass or glasses before in these our letters patents mentioned, and glass- works erected or made in any part of our said kingdom or domin- ions to be bought or sold contrary to the true intent and meaning of these our letters patents, or to any law, proclamation, ordinance. 224 APPENDICES or statute in that behalf made or ordained, or to be made or or- dained, and if upon search they shall find any such glass or glasses made, or any glass-work or furnace built or erected contrary to the true intent and meaning of these presents, that then, with all con- venient speed he or they do signify the same to us, our heirs, or suc- cessors, or to the treasurer, chancellor, and barons of our Exchequer or any of them for further order to be taken therein as shall apper- tain: And further that he and they, and every of them, do carefully and dihgently labor and endeavor that the true intent and mean- ing of these our letters patents may be truly observed; and if in execution thereof he or they, or any of them, shall find any resist- ance, then to certify the same unto our said Court of Exchequer to the end the offenders therein may receive condign and deserved punishment for their several offences, and we do further hereby straightly charge and command all mayors, sheriffs, justices of peace, bailiffs, constables, offices, and ministers, and all other the subjects of us, our heirs, and successors, to be aiding and assisting unto the said Sir Robert Mansell, his executors, administrators, deputies, assigns, factors, and workmen, in all reasonable things concerning the accomplishment of these our letters patents, and that they or any of them do not at any time or times hinder, mo- lest, interrupt, or disturb the execution thereof, as they tender our heavy displeasure and will avoid our indignation. And we do Uke- wise charge the attorney-general of us, our heirs, and successors for the time being, to be aiding and assisting to the said Sir Robert Mansell, his executors, administrators, and assigns, in the main- taining and upholding of this our grant and privilege, and in com- plaining against such as shall withstand or impugn the same, whereby they may be censured and punished according to justice; and these our letters patents or the enrollment of them shall be their sufficient warrant and discharge in that behalf; provided always, and our will and pleasure is, that this our present grant or anything therein contained shall not extend or be construed to extend to debar, hinder, or let any person or persons whatsoever to import or bring, or cause to be imported or brought into this our realm of England and the dominion of Wales, and there to utter, sell, and dispose of any glass or glasses of what kind or sort soever made within our realm of Scotland or in any foreign parts beyond APPENDICES 225 the seas, but that it shall be lawful for all person and persons to import into, and utter, and sell within the said realm of England and dominion of Wales, or any of them, or any part of them, any glass or glasses whatsoever made within the said realm of Scotland, or any foreign parts as aforesaid, anything in these presents con- tained to the contrary in any wise notwithstanding; paying never- theless unto us, our heirs, and successors, such customs, subsidies, impositions, and other duties as shall be due and payable for the said glass and glasses so to be imported, at the time of the importa- tion of the same. And lastly, we do by these presents, for us, our heirs, and successors, of our further especial grace and favor, grant unto the said Sir Robert Mansell, his executors, administrators, and assigns, that these our letters patents or the enrollment of them shall be taken, construed, and adjudged in all and every our courts of justice and elsewhere to be most available for the said Sir Robert Mansell his executors, administrators, and assigns, against us, our heirs, and successors, notwithstanding the not describing the certainty of the form of the furnaces, structures, engines, and de- vices to be used for the melting and making of all manner of drink- ing-glasses, broad glasses, window-glasses, looking-glasses, or any other kind of glass, glasses, bugles, bottles, vials, or vessels, what- soever, and notwithstanding the not particular naming, or mis- naming of the kind or manner of glasses to be made by virtue of this our grant, or the sizes or scanthng of the same, and notwith- standing any other defects and uncertainties in the same; any statute, law, provision, proclamation, or restraint to the contrary, and although express mention, &c. In witness whereof, &c. Witness ourself at Westminster, the two and twentieth day of May. Per breve de privato sigillo, &c. EXTENSION OF THE PATENT TO MANSELL FOR GLASS, 1634 This indenture made the first day of March, in the tenth year of the reign of our sovereign lord Charles, by the grace of God, King of England, Scotland, France, and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, &c., between our said sovereign lord the king, of the one part, and Sir Robert Mansell, Knight, lieutenant of the Admiralty of England, of the other part : Whereas his Majesty's late dear father. King James, of happy memory, by his letters patents, sealed with the great seal of England, bearing date at Westmin- ster the two and twentieth day of May, in the one and twentieth year of his reign of England, France, and Ireland, and of Scot- land, the six and fiftieth, as well to prevent the decay and great consumption of wood in this kingdom, occasioned in part by the making of glass with this sort of fuel, as in consideration of the good and faithful service done to his said late father by the said Sir Robert Mansell, and of the great pains, charges, hazard, disbursement, and expense of great sums of money and other detriment which the said Sir Robert Mansell had undergone and been at, in and about a new invention for the making of all manner of glasses with sea-coal and other fuel, not being timber or wood, nor made of timber or wood, and for other good causes and con- siderations him thereunto moving, of his special grace, certain knowledge, and mere motion, did give and grant, for him, his heirs, and successors, unto the said Sir Robert Mansell, his executors, administrators, and assigns, full and free liberty, license, power, and authority that he the said Sir Robert Mansell, his executors, ad- ministrators, assigns, deputies, servants, workmen, factors, and agents, should and might, from time to time and at all times then- after during the term of years in the said letters patents mentioned, at his and their and every of their wills and pleasures, use, exercise, practice, set up, and put in use the art, feat, and mistery of melting and making of all manner of drinking-glasses, broad glasses, win- APPENDICES 227 dow-glasses, looking-glasses, and all other kinds of glass, glasses, bugles, bottles, vials, or vessels whatsoever made of glass, of any fashion, stuff, matter, or metal whatsoever thentofore used or thenafter to be devised or used in the realm of England and Wales and the dominions thereof or elsewhere, with sea-coal, pit-coal, or any other fuel whatsoever, not being timber or wood, nor being made of timber or wood, in and throughout the realm of England and Wales and the dominions thereof, and within every or any part of them or any of them, and to make, erect, and set up as many furnaces, engines, structures^ and devices for that intent and purpose, and in as many places of the said realm of England and dominions thereof as he or they should think fit, agreeing with the owners of the soil for the same, to utter or sell in gross or by retail, or otherwise to do away at his and their, or any of their, free will and pleasure, to his and their profit and commodity, during the said term by the said letters patents mentioned; and that he the said Sir Robert ManseU, his executors, administrators, and assigns, and his and their deputies, servants, workmen, and agents, having license from the said Sir Robert ManseU, his executors, adminis- trators, or assigns, should and might, from time to time during the term by the said letters patents granted, have and enjoy the sole trade of making and melting of all manner of drinking-glasses, broad glasses, window-glasses, looking-glasses, and all other kinds of glass, glasses, bugles, bottles, vials, or vessels in form aforesaid; and that no other during the term by the said letters patents granted should or might use or practice the art or feat of making or melting of any glass with timber or wood, nor with pit-coal or sea-coal or other fuel, not being timber or wood, nor made of timber or wood; to have, hold, use, exercise, practice, and put in use the said license, liberty, privilege, authority, and immunity of and for melting and making of all manner of drinking-glasses, broad glasses, window- glasses, looking-glasses, and all other kinds of glass and glasses, bugles, bottles, vials, and vessels whatsoever with sea-coal, pit-coal, and other fuel, not being timber or wood, nor made of timber or wood, in all parts and places within the said kingdom and dominions, unto the said Sir Robert ManseU, his executors, administrators, depu- ties, and assigns, and their and every of their servants, agents, workmen, and factors, for and during the whole term, and to the 228 A PPENDICES full end and termination of fifteen years next ensuing the date of the said recited letters patents, fully to be complete and ended, freely and absolutely, without any rent, account, sum or sums of money, reckoning, allowance, or any other thing or things what- soever to his Majesty's said late father, his heirs, or successors, to be therefore paid, made, given, answered, or done in any manner of wise, as by the said before recited letters patents, amongst divers other grants, powers, privileges, and other things therein contained, more at large appeareth. Now this indenture witnesseth that the king's Majesty that now is, taking also into his consideration the daily waste of timber or wood, notwithstanding the great providence of his said late father for the prevention thereof, and well weighing the dangerous consequence that may in general befall this kingdom, and in particular to every member thereof, if all due means for the prevention of the waste and decays of wood and timber, and for the preservation and increase thereof be not carefully supported, held, and maintained; and withal, his Majesty, duly considering the benefit and comfort that ariseth to his people by the cherishing of manufactures of all sorts amongst them, whereby great numbers of them are set on work and maintained, and much treasure thereby saved, kept within this kingdom which was unthriftily otherwise spent in the maintenance of manufactures abroad, whereby strangers in foreign parts have received employment, and his own people and subjects at home wanted means to set them on work, and for that the perfect and absolute art, mistery, and manufacture of making of glass and glasses of all sorts with pit-coal and sea-coal, and of late of looking-glass and spectacle-glass plates is estabhshed and settled within this his Majesty's kingdom by the great care, ex- ceeding charge, and expenses of the said Sir Robert Mansell, where- by woods and timber heretofore greatly consumed in glass-works will be wholly preserved from being spent or wasted thereby, and many of his Majesty's subjects employed and set on work, especially in the making of spectacles and in the grinding, polishing, foiling, and casing of looking-glasses, which without the bringing in of the manufacture of the making of those plates could not have been estabhshed and settled in these his Majesty's dominions. And withal duly considering that by the estabhshment of that manu- facture sufficient quantities of good glass of all kinds and sorts APPENDICES 229 have been made and wrought within this kingdom for the use and service of all his Majesty's dominions, and that at far more easy rates and prices than the same were formerly sold, and that by the industry and charge of the said Sir Robert Mansell; in due con- sideration of all which, and of the many and faithful services of him the said Sir Robert Mansell to his Majesty and his said late father, and of the yearly rent hereafter in these presents reserved and to be yearly paid to his Majesty, his heirs, and successors, during the term of years hereafter in these presents expressed, and for divers other good causes and considerations, his Majesty there- unto moving of his especial grace, certain knowledge, and mere motion hath given and granted, and by these presents, for him, his heirs, and successors, doth give and grant unto the said Sir Robert Mansell, his executors, administrators, and assigns, full and free liberty, license, power, privilege, and authority that he the said Sir Robert Mansell, his executors, administrators, and assigns, and his and their deputies, servants, workmen, factors, and agents only, and none others, shall and may from time to time and at all times hereafter during the term of years hereafter in these presents ex- pressed at his and their and every of their wills and pleasures, use, exercise, practice, set up, and put in use the said art, feat, and mistery of melting and making of all manner of drinking-glasses, broad glasses, window-glasses, looking-glasses, spectacle-glasses, bugles, beads, otherwise known by the name of couterias or byniadoes bottles, vials, and vessels whatsoever made of glass, and all and every other thing and things whatsoever now made, used, or devised, or hereafter to be made, used, or devised of glass, or the matter or materials of glass, with sea-coal, pit-coal, or any other kind or sort of fuel whatsoever, not being timber or wood, nor made of timber or wood, within his Majesty's kingdom of England and the dominion of Wales and the town of Berwick, and within every or any part of them or any of them as aforesaid, and to make, erect, and set up as many furnaces, engines, structures, and devices, for that intent and purpose, and in as many places of the said kingdom of England, dominion of Wales, and town of Berwick as he or they shall think fit (first agreeing with the owners of the soil for the same). And the same drinking-glasses, broad glasses, window-glasses, looking- glasses, spectacle-glasses, bugles, beads, couterias or byniadoes 230 APPENDICES bottles, vials, and vessels whatsoever, made of glass, and all and every other thing and things whatsoever now made, used, or de- vised, or hereafter to be made, used, or devised, of glass or of the matter or materials of glass whatsoever so made, to utter or sell in gross or by retail, or otherwise to do away at his and their and any of their free wills and pleasures, to his and their profit and com- modities during the term of years hereafter mentioned, and that he, the said Sir Robert Mansell, his executors, administrators, and assigns, by him and themselves, and his and their deputies, servants, workmen, and agents, having license from the said Sir Robert Mansell, his executors, administrators, and assigns, shall and may from time to time during the term of years hereafter in these presents expressed and granted, have and enjoy the said sole trades and privilege of making and melting all manner of drinking-glasses, broad glasses, window-glasses, looking-glasses, spectacle-glasses, bugles, beads, couterias or byniadoes bottles, vials, and vessels whatsoever made of glass, and of all and every thing and things whatsoever now made, used, or devised, or hereafter to be made, used, or devised, of glass or of the matter or materials of glass as aforesaid, and that no other person or persons whatsoever, during the term of years in and by these presents hereafter granted, shall or may use, exercise, practice, or put in use the art or feat of making or melting of any glass, glasses, bugles, beads, looking-glasses, spectacle-glasses, bottles, or vessels whatsoever made of glass or of the matter or materials of glass as aforesaid. And this indenture further witnesseth that for the causes, reasons, and considerations in these presents before expressed, his said Majesty, our sovereign lord the king that now is, of his further especial grace, certain knowledge, and mere motion, hath given and granted, and by these presents, for him, his heirs, and successors, doth give and grant unto the said Sir Robert Mansell, his executors, administrators, and assigns, full and free liberty, license, power, privilege, and authority, that he the said Sir Robert Mansell, his executors, administrators, and assigns, and his and their deputies, servants, workmen, factors, and agents only, and none others, shall and may from time to time and at all times hereafter during the term of years hereaftei in these presents expressed, at his and their and every of their wills and pleasures, use, exercise, practice, set up, and put in use the art, feat, APPENDICES 231 and mistery of melting and making, with any kind of fuel whatsoever in the realm of Ireland and the dominions thereof, of all manner of drinking-glasses, broad glasses, window-glasses, looking-glasses, spectacle-glasses, bugles, beads, otherwise known by the name of couterias or byniadoes bottles, vials, and vessels whatsoever made of glass, and of all and every other thing and things whatsoever now made, used, or devised or hereafter to be made, used, or devised, of glass or of the matter or materials of glass, and to make, erect, and set up as many furnaces, engines, structures, and devices for that intent and purpose, and in as many places of the said realm of Ire- land and dominions thereof as he or they shall think fit and con- venient (agreeing with the owners of the soil for the same), and the same drinking-glasses, broad glasses, window-glasses, looking- glasses, spectacle-glasses, bugles, beads, couterias or byniadoes bottles, vials, and vessels whatsoever, made of glass, and all and every other thing and things whatsoever now made, used, or devised, or hereafter to be made, used, or devised of glass or of the matter or materials of glass whatsoever so made, to utter or sell in gross or by retail, or otherwise to do away at his and their or any of their free wills and pleasures to his and their advantage and commodity during the term of years hereafter mentioned, and that he, the said Sir Robert Mansell, his executors, administrators, and assigns, by him and themselves, and by his and their deputies, servants, workmen, and agents having license from the said Sir Robert Mansell, his executors, administrators, and assigns, shall and may from time to time during the term of years hereafter expressed, have and enjoy the sole trade and privilege of melting and making of all manner of drinking-glasses, broad glasses, window-glasses, looking- glasses, spectacle-glasses, bugles, beads, couterias or byniadoes bottles, vials, and vessels whatsoever made of glass, and of all and every other thing and things whatsoever now made, used, or devised, or hereafter to be made, used, or devised, of glass, or of the matter or materials of glass, within the said realm of Ireland and the do- minions thereof as aforesaid; and that no other person or persons whatsoever, during the term of years hereafter mentioned, shall or may use, exercise, practice, or put in use the art or feat of melting or making of any glass, glasses, bugles, beads, looking-glasses, spectacle-glasses, bottles, vessels, or other the premises in the said 232 APPENDICES realm of Ireland or the dominions thereof as aforesaid; to have, hold, use, exercise, practice, and put in use the said several licenses, Uberties, privileges, authorities, and immunities of and for the sole melting and making of all and all manner of drinking-glasses, broad glasses, window-glasses, looking-glasses, spectacle-glasses, bugles, beads, couterias or byniadoes bottles, vials, and vessels whatsoever made of glass; and of all and every other thing and things what- soever now made, used, or devised, or hereafter to be made, used, or devised of glass or of the matter or materials of glass, with such several sorts and kinds of fuel and in such manner as in and by these presents is before Umited and appointed in all parts and places within his Majesty's said realms of England and Ireland, dominion of Wales, and town of Berwick, and in every of them, and the uttering and selling of the same in gross or by retail or other- wise as aforesaid, and all and singular other the premises unto the said Sir Robert Mansell, his executors, administrators, and assigns, by him and themselves, or by his, their, and every of their deputies, servants, workmen, factors, and agents, for and during the whole term and to the fuU end and determination of one and twenty years, to commence, begin, and to be accounted from the end and expiration of the said term of fifteen years by the said before recited letters patents of his said Majesty's said late father unto the said Sir Robert Mansell, so granted as aforesaid, from thenceforth next and immediately ensuing, fully to be complete and ended, yielding and paying therefor yearly. And the said Sir Robert Mansell, for himself, his executors, administrators, and assigns, doth covenant, promise, and grant, to and with his Majesty, his heirs, and successors, by these presents to yield and pay unto his said Majesty, his heirs, and successors, during the said term of one and twenty years hereby granted, into the receipt of the Exchequer of his Majesty, his heirs, and successors at Westminster, the annual and yearly rent, farm, or sum of one thousand and five hundred pounds of lawful money of England, at the feasts of St. Michael the Archangel, and the Annunciation of the blessed Virgin Mary, or within the space of forty days next after either of the said feasts, by even and equal portions yearly to be paid; the first payment thereof to be begun at the feast of St. Michael the Archangel, next coming after commencement or beginning of this his Majesty's present APPENDICES 233 grant as aforesaid. And to the end the said Sir Robert Mansell, his executors, administrators, and assigns, may receive, perceive, and have such benefit, profit, and commodity as is intended unto him and them by this his Majesty's grant, and as the inventing and per- fecting of so great a work undergone with such care, expense, and hazard deserveth, his said Majesty doth hereby expressly declare and signify his royal pleasure to be, and his said Majesty, for him, his heirs, and successors, doth straightly charge, inhibit, and command all and every other his Majesty's loving subjects, and all and every other person or persons, of what estate, degree, or condition they or any of them be, that they presume not nor attempt by any art, act, or device whatsoever, directly or indirectly in his Majesty's said realms of England and Ireland, dominion of Wales, and town of Berwick, or in any the parts or places to them, either, or any of them respectively belonging, to melt or make any manner or kind of drink- ing-glasses, broad glass, window-glasses, looking-glasses, spectacle- glasses, bugles, beads, couterias or byniadoes bottles, vials, or vessels whatsoever made of glass, and of all and every other thing and things whatsoever now made, used, or devised, or hereafter to be made, used, or devised, of glass or of the matter or materials of glass, with coal or any other sort of fuel whatsoever as aforesaid, during the term of years hereby granted, without the special consent and Ucense in writing of the said Sir Robert Mansell, his executors, administrators, or assigns, but that the full and whole benefit, advantage, and profit of melting and making of all kind and kinds of glass and glasses whatsoever in his Majesty's said several realms of England and Ireland as aforesaid shall be and remain during all the said term of years hereby granted under the rent aforesaid to the sole and only behoof, disposition, and use of the said Sir Robert Mansell, his executors, administrators, and assigns, and to the use of none other person or persons whatsoever, and his said Majesty doth further by these presents, for him, his heirs, and successors, straightly charge, command, and prohibit, and doth signify his royal will and pleasure to be, that no person or persons whatsoever, of what estate, degree, or condition soever they be or any of them be, other than the said Sir Robert Mansell, his executors, administrators, deputies, and assigns, and such as shall be licensed, authorized, and set on work by him or them or some of them, do, shall, or may at any time 234 APPENDICES hereafter during the term of years hereinbefore granted, practice, erect, or set up by any ways or means the said art and feat of melting or making any kind of glass or glasses, bugles, beads, bottles, vials, or vessels whatsoever made of glass as aforesaid, or any furnace or furnaces for making thereof, within his Majesty's said realms of England and Ireland, dominion of Wales, town of Berwick, or in any parts or places to them or either of them belonging as aforesaid, upon pain of his Majesty's heavy displeasure and due and condign punishment for the contempt of his royal commandment in that behalf. And his said Majesty doth by these presents, for him, his heirs, and successors, give and grant unto the said Sir Robert Mansell, his executors, administrators, and assigns, deputies, factors, and agents, and every of them, full power, Uberty, and authority, from time to time and at all times during the said term hereby granted, by all lawful ways and means to search, try, and find out all offences and acts committed and done contrary to the true intent and meaning of these his Majesty's letters patents, and likewise his Majesty, for him, his heirs, and successors, doth hereby, of his especial grace, certain knowledge, and mere motion, give and grant unto the said Sir Robert Mansell, his executors, administra- tors, deputies, assigns, factors, agents, and servants, free power, liberty, hcense, and authority to utter and sell in gross or by retail such kind of glass or glasses before mentioned as shall be made by virtue of these his Majesty's letters patents, and if he or they shall have more than will furnish and serve his Majesty and the subjects of his Majesty, his heirs, and successors, of the said several realms of England and Ireland as aforesaid, that then he and they and such others as shall buy, acquire, or obtain the said glasses so made as aforesaid of him, or them, or any of them, may at their pleasure transport and carry over into foreign parts beyond the seas, so many and so much thereof as he or they shall think fit; paying unto his Majesty, his heirs, and successors, the customs and other duties due to be paid for the same, and leaving a sufficient quantity for the use and service of his Majesty, his heirs, and successors, and of his and their subjects of the said several realms and the dominions thereof at moderate rates and prices during the said term; and further for the considerations aforesaid his Majesty, of his especial grace, certain knowledge, and mere motion, doth hereby, for him, APPENDICES 235 his heirs, and successors, further grant unto the said Sir Robert Mansell, his executors, administrators, deputies, and assigns, full power, license, and authority that he and they shall or may law- fully, from time to time during the said term before granted, im- port and bring, or cause to be imported and brought, into his Maj- esty's said realms of England and Ireland and the dominions thereof, all or any sorts or kinds of Venice and Morana glasses whatsoever, and the same so imported as aforesaid to utter or sell in gross or by retail or otherwise, to do away at his and their wills and pleasures, and for his and their benefit and advantage, without paying or yielding to his said Majesty, his heirs, or successors, any account, rent, or recompense of or for the same, other than the cus- toms and other duties due for the same, and other than the yearly rent before herein reserved, and yearly to be paid to his said Majesty, his heirs, and successors as aforesaid, and the said Sir Robert Man- sell, for him, his executors, administrators, and assigns, doth cove- nant, promise, and grant to and with our said sovereign lord the king, his heirs, and successors, by these presents, that he the said Sir Robert Mansell, his executors, administrators, and assigns, shall and will during the said term of years hereinbefore granted as aforesaid, well and sufficiently supply and furnish his Majesty's said several realms and kingdoms of England and Ireland and the subjects thereof, from time to time with aU sorts and kinds of good glass and glasses whatsoever at moderate rates or prices to be required, paid, and taken for the same, and his said Majesty, for him, his heirs, and successors, doth further grant to the said Sir- Robert Mansell, his executors, administrators, and assigns, and doth hereby also straightly charge, require, and prohibit all and all manner of person and persons whatsoever other than the said Sir Robert Mansell, his executors, administrators, and assigns, that they or any of them during the said term of one and twenty years hereby granted, do not attempt or presume to import or bring, or cause to be imported or brought, into these his Majesty's realms of Eng- land and Ireland, dominion of Wales, or town of Berwick, or any of them, from Venice or Morana, or from any other foreign part or parts whatsoever (Scotland only excepted), any manner or kind of glass or glasses whatsoever as aforesaid, nor shall directly or in- directly buy or contract for, sell, utter, or put to sale, any such 236 APPENDICES kinds or sorts of glass so made or imported, or to be made or im- ported, contrary to the tenor and true meaning of these his Majesty's letters patents, and the several grants, Ucenses, and privileges to the said Sir Robert Mansell, his executors, administrators, and assigns therein granted, upon pain of his Majesty's high displeasure and of such punishments and penalties as by the laws and statutes of this realm or otherwise shall or may be inflicted on such deUn- quents according to the merits of such their contempts and offences in that behalf. And his said Majesty also, for him, his heirs, and successors, doth grant and covenant by these presents to and with the said Sir Robert ManseU, his executors, administrators, and assigns, that he, his heirs, or successors, will not, at any time during the said term of one and twenty years, give or grant to any person or persons whatsoever, other than to the said Sir Robert Mansell, his executors, administrators, and assigns, any hcense or toleration to import or bring into his said realms of England and Ireland, or any of them, any sorts or kinds of glass or glasses whatsoever, from any foreign part or parts whatsoever (Scotland only excepted), and his Majesty doth further give and grant unto the said Sir Robert Mansell, his executors, administrators, and assigns, and to his and their deputies, factors, and agents, and every of them, full power, liberty, and lawful authority, from time to time and at all times during the said time and term of one and twenty years, by all law- ful ways and means to search, try, and find out all offences and acts from time to time committed, perpetrated, or done, or to be committed, perpetrated, or done, contrary to the true intent and meaning of these presents, and his Majesty doth further, for him, his heirs, and successors, will and grant that the several treasurers, vice- treasurers, chancellors, barons, and other the officers and ministers of his Highness's exchequers of his several realms of England and Ireland, for the time being respectively, by force of these presents, or the enrollment, constat, or exempUfication thereof, from time to time, and at all times hereafter during the said term of years hereby granted, upon the request of the said Sir Robert Mansell, his exe- cutors, administrators, or assigns, or his and their deputies, serv- ants, factors, or agents, shall grant forth, make, and direct under the several and respective seals of the said several courts of exchequers or other courts of his said several realms or kingdoms of England APPENDICES 237 and Ireland as aforesaid respectively, such and so many writ and writs, close or patent, and other processes whatsoever, unto such mayors, bailiffs, sheriffs, customers, comptrollers, searchers, and other officers of his Majesty, his heirs, and successors, in such shires, counties, cities, towns, boroughs, and other places whatso- ever within the said several realms of England and Ireland re- spectively, and the dominions thereof, as the said Sir Robert Man- sell, his executors, administrators, or assigns, or his or their deputies, servants, agents, or factors shall at any time and from time to time require, during the said term of years hereby granted or meant or intended to be granted as aforesaid, thereby charging and com- manding the said officers and every of them in their several offices and places respectively, diligently, faithfully, and carefully to in- quire, try, search, and find out all and every such person and per- sons as contrary to the true intent and meaning of these his Majesty's letters patents shall at any time during the said term of years hereby granted, make, set, utter, import, or bring in as aforesaid any such kind of glass or glasses whatsoever hereinbefore mentioned, or build, make, use, erect, or set up, or cause to be builded, made, erected, or set up, any such furnaces, structures, engines, or devices for the melting or making of any the sorts or kinds of glass or glasses before mentioned, and them to apprehend and put in safe custody until they understand the pleasures of his Majesty's said treasurers, vice-treasurers, chancellors, and barons of his said courts of exchequers of his said several kingdoms or realms of England and Ireland respectively, to whom it shall or may appertain in that behalf, and further order by them be taken therein, and his Majesty doth hereby, for himself, his heirs, and successors, will and command the treasurers, vice-treasurers, chancellors, and barons of the said exchequers, and all other the officers and ministers of his said several realms or kingdoms of England and Ireland respectively for the time being, and every of them, that they, every, or any of them, upon complaint made by the said Sir Robert Mansell, his executors, administrators, or assigns, or his or their deputies, servants, factors, or agents in that behalf, do perform and execute all that in justice they may, as well for the demolishing and destroying of the said furnaces, structures, engines, and devices set up or devised contrary to the true intent of these presents as for the lawful punishment of 238 APPENDICES all such as shall any ways offend against any grant, license, power, privilege, inhibition, matter, or thing whatsoever in these his Ma- jesty's letters patents mentioned or contained, and for the confisca- tion and forfeiture of all sorts and kinds of glass and glasses what- soever that shall be made, shipped, imported, or brought in, or other- wise vented, uttered, or sold contrary to the true intent and meaning of these presents as by his Majesty's said courts of exchequers and other his said officers respectively shall be thought meet. And for the better execution of this his Majesty's grant and the several licenses, powers, privileges, matters, and things therein contained, his said Majesty doth hereby, for him, his heirs, and successors, give and grant full power, license, and authority unto the said Sir Robert Mansell, his executors, administrators, and assigns, by him and themselves or by his or their deputies, agents, factors, or servants, with the assistance of some officers appointed for the pre- servation of the peace or other lawful officer of his said several realms and kingdoms respectively, to enter into any ship, bottom, vessel, boat, houses, cellars, soUers, warehouses, shops, rooms, glass-house or glass-houses, and other place or places whatsoever within any part of his Majesty's said several kingdoms and do- minions respectively as aforesaid, as well within liberties as with- out, where any such furnaces, structures, engines, or devices shall be erected, made, or set up contrary to the true meaning of these presents, or where any sorts of glass made or imported contrary to the licenses and privileges hereby granted or intended to be granted as aforesaid, shall probably or reasonably be suspected to be, and there by all lawful ways and convenient means to try and search for all and all manner and kind of any the glass and glasses before in these his Majesty's letters patents mentioned, and glass-works erected or made in any part of his said several kingdoms to be made, bought, sold, imported, or brought in contrary to the true intent and meaning of these presents, or to any law, proclamation, ordin- ance, restraint, or inhibition in that behalf made or ordained, or to be made or ordained; and if upon inquiry or search they shall find any such glass or glasses made, imported, shipped, or brought in, or any glass-work or works, furnace or furnaces, built or erected contrary to the true intent and meaning of these presents, that then and in every such case it shall and may be lawful to and for the said APPENDICES 239 Sir Robert Mansell, his executors, administrators, and assigns, and his and their deputies, servants, and agents, with an officer sworn for the preservation of his Majesty's peace, or other lawful officer, to take and seize the same and with all convenient speed to signify the same seizure and seizures to his Majesty, his heirs, or successors, or to the treasurers, vice-treasurers, chancellors, or barons of his said several exchequers, or other the oflScers of his said several offices of his said several realms and kingdoms of England and Ireland, or either of them, to whom in that behalf it shall or may appertain, for such further order and redress to be taken therein as shall appertain and to them shall seem fit, that the true intent and meaning of these his Majesty's letters patents be duly and fully obeyed, observed, and kept accordingly; and if in the execution thereof, or of any hcense, privilege, power, or inhibition therein contained, the said Sir Robert Mansell, his executors, administrators, and assigns, or his or their deputies, agents, or factors, or any of them, shall find any opposi- tion or resistance, that then he or they do certify the same unto his Majesty's said Court of Exchequer, and other the said officers and ministers of his said several realms and kingdoms respectively, to the end the offenders therein may receive condign and deserved punishment for their several offences, and his Majesty doth further hereby straightly charge and command all mayors, sheriffs, justices of peace, bailiffs, customers, searchers, constables, officers, and ministers, and all other the subjects of his Majesty, his heirs, and successors, of his said several kingdoms and realms of England and Ireland respectively, to be aiding and assisting from time to time during the term of years hereinbefore mentioned to the said Sir Robert Mansell, his executors, administrators, and assigns, and to his and their deputies, factors, servants, and agents in the full and due accompHshment, upholding, and maintaining of these his Majesty's letters patents, grants, and privileges, and of all matters and things therein contained, and in complaining, suing, impleading, and prosecuting against such as shall withstand or impugn the same, whereby they may be censured and punished according to justice. And these presents or the enrollment thereof shall be his and their sufficient warrant and discharge in that behalf. And lastly his Majesty by these presents, for him, his heirs, and suc- cessors, of his further especial grace, certain knowledge, and mere 240 APPENDICES motion, doth grant unto the said Sir Robert Mansell, his executors, administrators, and assigns, that these presents or the enrollment thereof shall be taken, construed, and adjudged in all and every his Highness's courts of justice and elsewhere to be most favorable, effectual, and available to and for the said Sir Robert Mansell, his executors, administrators, and assigns, and most strongly against his Majesty, his heirs, and successors, notwithstanding the not describing the certainty of the form of the furnaces, structures, engines, and devices to be used for the melting and making of all manner of drinking-glasses, broad glasses, window-glasses, looking- glasses, or any other kind of glass, glasses, bugles, bottles, vials, or vessels whatsoever, and notwithstanding the not particular naming or misnaming of the kind, form, or manner of glasses to be made or imported by virtue of this his Majesty's grant, or the sizes or scant- Ungs of the same, and notwithstanding the misreciting and not true and perfect reciting of the said grant or grants of Hcense and privilege heretofore made to the said Sir Robert Mansell by his Majesty's said late dear father touching the melting and making of the said glass and glasses, and the several sorts and kinds thereof therein mentioned or expressed, and notwithstanding any other misrecital or non-recital or any other defects or incertainties in these presents, or any statute, law, provision, proclamation, act, ordinance, or restraint before had, made, or provided, or any other thing, matter, or clause to the contrary notwithstanding. Provided always, that if it shall happen the said yearly rent or sum of one thousand five hundred pounds hereby reserved and yearly payable to his said Majesty, his heirs, and successors as aforesaid, or any part or parcel thereof, shall be behind and unpaid by the space of fifty days next after either of the said feasts in which the same ought to be paid as aforesaid, that then his Majesty's grants or letters patents, and every clause, article, power, and privilege therein contained, shall cease, determine, and be utterly void, to all intents, constructions, and purposes whatsoever, anything in these presents contained to the contrary notwithstanding. Provided also that if the said Sir Robert Mansell, his executors, administrators, or assigns, shall not enroll these his Majesty's letters patents before the clerk of the Pipe for the time being in the Exchequer of England within six months after the date thereof, then the said Sir Robert Mansell, his execu- APPENDICES 241 tors, administrators, or assigns, shall forfeit and pay to his Majesty, his heirs, and successors (nomine poenae),the sum of fifty pounds of lawful money of England, and so for every six months after, in which the same shall not be enrolled as aforesaid, to forfeit and pay to his Majesty, his heirs, and successors, the Uke sum of fifty pounds (nomine poenae) until the said letters patents shall be enrolled ac- cording to the intent and meaning of these presents. In witness whereof to the one part of these presents, remaining with the said Sir Robert Mansell, his said Majesty hath caused the great seal of England to be put, and to the other part thereof, remaining with his Majesty, the said Sir Robert Mansell hath put to his hand and seal the day and year above written, anno Domini, 1634. Et memorandum quod secundo die Marcii anno regni regis CaroU decimo praefatus Robertus Mansellus, miles, venit coram dicto domino rege in Cancellaria sua, et recognovit indenturam praedictam ac omnia et singula in eadem contenta et specificata in forma suprascripta, &c. BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY MANUSCRIPT SOURCES In the British Mtisetjm. Landsdowne MSS. These are particularly important because they are largely made up of Burghley and Caesar papers. Burghley collected the most important correspondence relating to industries in Elizabeth's reign, and Csesar did the same in the reign of James I. Titus MSS. Cotton Collection. Vespasian MSS. Cotton Collection. Harleian MSS. Egerton MSS. Sloane MSS. Additional MSS. For all the British Museum manuscripts there are published catalogues which indicate the subject-matter of each document. The "Class Catalogue" in the Manuscript Reading- Room of the Museum is a convenient and useful, though incomplete guide. In the Peivy Counch, Office. Council Registers. One of the best sources of information. The Registers have been published only as far as the year 1598, and further publication has unfortunately been suspended. The published Registers, under the title of Acts of the Privy Council, practically cover Ehzabeth's reign. In the Library of Lincoln's Inn. Coxa MSS. In the London Guildhall Records Room. Repertories of the Board of Aldermen. Remembrancia. Correspondence between the national and city authorities. The Analytical Index published in 1878 gives the letters in condensed form. At the Public Record Office. State Papers, Domestic. The series covering the period from 1560 to 1640 are: Elizabeth, James I, Addenda, and Charles I. There are published calen- 246 BIBLIOGRAPHY dars for all these series, but only brief ones for the reign of James I and the early part of the reign of Elizabeth. Patent Rolls. The full text of all important grants. The manuscript calen- dars are a necessary guide. The Patent Office Specifications publish the full text of nearly all the early patents for invention from the year 161 7. Signet Office Docquet Books. The most convenient source of information as to patent grants. The important particulars of the grants are here given. In these books were copied the memoranda at the foot of the "King's Bill." The index volumes are valueless. Grant Books. Sign Manual. Warrant Books. State Paper Docquets. Very brief memoranda of grants. Exchequer Decrees and Orders. Depositions taken by Special Commission, King's Remembrancer of the Exchequer. Audit Office Declared Accounts. The Historical Manuscripts Commission has published a calendar of the Salisbury Papers preserved at Hatfield House. It has also published a calendar of the manuscripts preserved in the Library of the House of Lords. CONTEMPORARY PRINTED LITERATURE Collections of Proclamations in the British Museum, the Library of the Society of Antiquaries, and the Record Office. Collections of Broadsides in the Library of the Society of Antiquaries. 1549. Hales, John. Discourse of the Commonwealth. 1559. Agricola, George. De re Metallica. 1596. Harington, Sir John. Metamorphosis of Ajax. 1607. Norden, J. Surveyor's Dialogue. 1616. James I. Book of Bounty. 1612. Sturtevant, S. Metallica. 1613. Rolvenson, J. Metallica. 1615. Stow, J. Annals of England, Edm. Howes, editor. 1620-21. Petitions and Parliamentary Matters, London Guildhall Tracts, Beta. 1622. Misselden, E. Free Trade, or the Means to make Trade flourish. 1622. Malynes, Gerard. Lex Mercatoria, or Ancient Law Merchant. 1638-75. Petitions and Remonstrances. In George III Library, British Museum. BIBLIOGRAPHY 247 1640-60. King's Pamphlets, in the British Museum. 1641. Naunton, Sir Robert. Fragmenta Regalia. 1641. Robinson, Henry. England's Safety in Trade's Increase. 1641. Dayies, J. (Citizen and Fishmonger.) Answer to Printed Papers by the late Patentees of Salt in their pretended Defence against Free Trade. 1641. . . . Hyde, E. (Earl of Clarendon). History of the Rebellion and Civil Wars in England, ist ed. 1702. . . 1641. Anon. A True Remonstrance of the State of the Salt Business. 1641. Anon. Short and True Relation concerning the Soap Business. 1642. . . . Bushell, Tracts. This volume in the British Museum is a series of printed memorials addressed to the crown and Parliament. If contains The Just and True Remonstrance of his Majesty's Mines Royal in the Principality of Wales, 1642; The Case of Thomas Bushell truly stated, 1649; Mr. Bushell's Abridgment of Lord Chancellor Bacon's Philosophical Theory of Mineral Prosecutions, 1659; and some supplementary notes added at the Restoration. 1645. Howell, J. Epistolae Ho-Elianae. 1649. Gray, Wm. Chorographia. 1650. Lilbume, J.,et al. The Soapmakers' Complaint for the Loss of their Trade. 1651. Welldon, Sir A. The Court of King Charles. 1651. Anon. Abstract or Brief Declaration of his Majesty's Revenue. 1619-20. (Somers, Tracts, 2d ed. 1809, ii, pp. 364-400.) 1656. S— , W— (Gent.). Golden Fleece. 1662. Merret, C, ed. A. Neri's Art of Glass. 1663. Worcester, Marquis of. A Century of Inventions. 1665. Dudley, Dud. Metallum Martis. 1670. Pettus, Sir J. Fodinae Regales. 1677. Powle, Account of the Iron-Works in the Forest of Dean. (Phil. Trans.) 1679. (Carew, T.) Brief Narrative of the several remarkable Cases of Sir William Courten and Sir Paul Pindar. 1681. Carew, T. Hinc illae Lachrymae, or the Life and Death of Sir William Courten and Sir Paul Pindar. 1681. Yarranton, A. England's Improvement by Land and Sea. 1681. . . Houghton, J., ed. Collection for the Improvement of Husbandry and Trade. (2d series, 1693. . . ). 1713. Stringer, M. Opera Mineralia Explicata. Based upon personal knowledge, and records no longer extant. 248 BIBLIOGRAPHY PARLIAMENTARY PROCEEDINGS Statutes of the Realm. Husband, E. Orders and Ordinances, 1642-46. 1646. D'Ewes, Sir Simonds, Parliaments of Elizabeth. 1682. Townshend, H. Historical Collection 0} the last four Parliaments of EKzabeth. 1680. Parliamentary History. 1806. . . . Proceedings and Debates, 1620-21. 2 vols. 1766. Rushworth, J. Historical Collection of Private Passages of State, of weighty Matters in Law, remarkable Proceedings in five Parliaments, etc., 1618-49. 1659-1701. Journals of the House of Commons. Journals of the House of Lords. LEGAL REPORTS Coke, Sir Edward. Reports, ist English edition, 1777, 13 parts, 7 volumes. Moore, Sir Francis. Cases Collect. &i" Report. — per Sir F. Moore. — Ore prim- ierent imprime &= publie per I' original remainant en les mains de Sir G. Palmer. ist ed. 1663, 2d ed. 1688. The Exact Abridgment in English, by W. Hughes, 1665, is of no value. Noy, William. Reports of Cases taken in the Time of Queen Elizabeth, King James, and King Charles. 1656. Hardres, Sir Thomas. Reports of Cases adjudged in the Court of Exchequer in the Years 1655-60. 1693. SECONDARY AUTHORITIES Brand, John. History of Newcastle. 1789. Cunningham, W. Growth of English Industry and Commerce in Modern Times. 3d ed. 1903. pp. 53-85 are devoted to "The Policy of Burleigh" (contributed to the work by Mrs. LiUan Tomn Knowles), and pp. 285-331 to "Regulation of Social and Industrial Conditions " under the Stuarts. At the end of the work there is a useful bibliography. The author sympathizes with the monopoly policy, with a few exceptions. Dictionary of National Biography. 1885. . . Various articles under the names of patentees give useful hints as to sources of information. BIBLIOGRAPHY 249 Durham, F. H. Relation of the Crown to Trade under James I. Royal Historical Society Transactions, 1899. Galloway, R. L. Annals of Coal Mining and the Coal Trade. 2d ed. 1898. Gardiner, S. R. History of England, 1603-42. 10 vols. 1893. Ch. xxxiii in vol. iv deals with the monopoly agitation of 1621, based on an article in Archaeologia. Gardiner, S. R. Four Letters of Lord Bacon to Christian IV. Archaeologia, Feb- ruary, 1867. Contains a long and somewhat labored defence of Bacon's attitude toward the monopolies. Hallen, C. Early English Glassmakers. Scottish Antiquary, April, 1893. Hartshome, A. Old English Glasses. 1897. Hewins, W. A. S. English Trade and Finance in the Seventeenth Century. 1892. Monopolies are considered in the introduction, and in chapters i and ii. Ch. ii deals chiefly with the iron industry. The author takes an unfavorable view of the patents. Hulme, E. W. History of the Patent System under the Prerogative and Common Law. Law Quarterly Review, April, 1896, January, 1900. A convenient descriptive account of patents for invention, 1560-1600. Hulme, E. W. English Glass-making in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries. Antiquary, November, 1894, December, 1894, March, 1895, April, 1895. Very good articles with many helpful citations. Meikleham, R. S. The Progress of Machinery and Manufactures in Great Britain exhibited in chronological notices of some Inventions and Improvements from the earliest Times to the Present, pp. 1-234 in vol. v of Weale's Quarterly Papers on Engineering. 1846. This, the longest account of the early patents hitherto published, is more noteworthy for its rarity than for its scholarly merits. It is professedly only a compilation of extracts from original sources, but the editorial work is poor. Ordish, T. F. Early English Inventions, 1603-20. Antiquary, July, August, and September, 1885. Not altogether satisfactory. The author frequently cites the "Pells Privy Seal Books,'' but he apparently has in mind the Signet Offices Docquet Books. ■Page, Wm. Letters of Denizations and Acts of Naturalization, 1509-1603. Huguenot Society PubUcations (vol. viii), 1893. pp. xlii-U deal with Foreign Influence on Trades. Prothero, G. W. Statutes and Constitutional Documents, 1558-1625. 2ded. 1898. Strype's Stow's Survey of London and Westminster. 2 vols. 1720. Strype's additions are the most useful part of the work. They consist of nearly 250 BIBLIOGRAPHY verbatim copies from manuscripts, chiefly the Lansdowne volumes, which were at one time in Strype's possession. Unwin, George. Industrial Organization of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries. 1904. The best discussion of the industrial history of the period that has yet been published; unfavorable to monopolies. Nearly every text-book on English Patent Law gives an introductory historical review of the monopolies before the statute of 1624, but these have little value as history. For the historical student the most helpful book on English Patent Law is by J. W. Gordon, Monopolies by, Patents, 1897, chiefly useful for its ap- pended matter. For a good classified list of books on all phases of the subject of patents for inventions, consult Subject List of Books on Industrial Property in the Library of the Patent Office, London, 1900. INDEX INDEX Abuses, 8, i6, 25, J2, 33, 45, 65, 113, 156, 157, 161, 162, 163, i56, 167, 173. Accountants, accounts, accounting, 51, 95, 96, 116, 201. Acontio, Giacopo, 7, 8. Act of monopolies. See Statute of monopolies. Administration, 14, 30, 41, 122, 128, 131. Adoption of patent policy, 6, 7. Adventurers. See Undertakers. Agents, 226, 229, 230, 234, 236, 238, 239. Agricola, Geo., 63, 246. Alchemy, 82. Ale-houses, 31, 172, 174. Alexander, Robt., 143, 145, 149, 152. Aliens, 39, 51, 57, 59, 61, 64, 68, 194, 210. Allen (Darcy vs.), 22-24. Allin, Wm., 152. Alnage, 9, 27. Alum, 8, 31, 32, 42, 82-101, 140. Alum Bay, 82. Anise-seed, 143, 145, 149, 150, 152. Annesley, Bryan, 143, 145, 151, 152. Annuities, annuitors, 84-89, 93, 96, 98, 178. Andever, Thos., 216. Anton, 15. Apprentices, apprenticeship, 36, 40, 64, 79, 121, 125, 127, 167. Aqua vitae, aqua composita, beer vinegar, 143, 149, 150, 151, 152. Arber, Wm., 149. Arms, armorers, 5, 167. Artisans. See Workmen. Arundell and Surrey, Thos., Earl of, earl mar- shal, 169. Ashley, Jno., 146, 148. Assay, assaying, 55, 120, 123, 210. Assessment, 51, 56. Assistance, letters of, 156, 158, 172, 173, 174, 175- Assessment, 51, 56. Assurance (marine), policies of, 146. Astell, 108. Atherton, 83. Aubrey, 68. Bacon, Francis, 21, 22, 25, 26, 30, 32, 33, 37, 105, 154. Baker, Abraham, 141. Balance of trade, 119. Ballasting, 144, 168. Bangor, Bishop of, 160. Bankrupts, 86, 171, 174. Barilla, 207, 208. Barker, Robt., 159. Bassaney, Arthur, 149, 152. Bath, 57. Battery works. See Mineral and Battery works. Beale, Robt., 143. Beaupr^, 68. Becku, 67. Bedingfield, 17. Beer, 142, 143, 144, 147, 151, 152. Bellingham, Henry, 144. Benefit of penal laws and of forfeiture, 12, 13, •3S. 136. 148, i49> '64- Bennett, Wm., 13. Berne, 3. Berwick, 209, 229, 232-235. Bill against monopolies, 1601, 20, 21, 155. Bineon, Roger, 13, 146. Boston, 142. Bottles (stone). See Pots. Bounty, Book of, 28, 34. Bourchier, Sir Jno., 83-97, H9. Bowes, Sir Jerome, 17, 70, 71, 72, 80, 143, 145, 148, 152, 215. Bowlder, Rich., 86. Brand, John, 78, 248. Brass, 60, 177, 179, 181, 182, 191. Brewers, brewing, 172, 174, 179. Bribery, 15, 64, 93, 124, 170. Bricks, brick-makers, 82, 88, 172, 179,182, 191. Bridport, 6. Briet, 67. Brigham, 145. Bristol, 57, 120, 125. British Isles, 80. Brode, Jno., 59. Brooke, Sir Basil, 29. Brooke, Sir Jno., 91. Brokerage, brokers, 95, 171, 173. Brushes, 150, 157. Buck, Jeremy, no. Buckingham, Geo., Duke of, lord high admiral, 3'' 3^. 33. 93' 169. Bulmer, Bevis, 63, 142, 147. Bungars, 68, 69, 75, 76, 77, 80. Burghley, Lord, Wm. Cecil, lord treasurer, 13, 18, 55, 82, 245, 248. 254 INDEX Bury St. Edmunds, 6. Bushell, Thos., 52, 53, 54, 55, 63, 247. Caesar, Sir J., z6, 86, 89, loi, 245. Calamine stone, 55, 59, 150. Calf-skins, 10, 141, 147, 152, 157. "Calling in" of patents, 46, 78, 116, 117. Cancellation, 21, 29, 99, 100. Cambridge, 117. Canterbury, 39. Capital, capitalists, 36, 37, 39, 40, 51, 55, 77, 80, 81, 86, 97, 103, 108, 129, 131. Cardan, 4. Cardiganshire, 52, 53, 54. Cards, playing-, cardmakers, 8, 9, 22, 23, 24, 30. 39. 4^. 149. 15°. 151. '5^' 157, ifi?. I7»- Card-wire. &ee Wire and Wool-cards. Carew, Geo., 146. Carew, T., 97, 247. Carleton, 91, 95, loi. Carnithen, Rich., 147. Carre, Wm., 67, 142, 144, 147, 151, 152. Case of Monopolies, 22-24, 73. Cecil, Robt., secretary. Earl of Salisbury, 18,21, 22, 26, JO, 51, 57, 85, 87, 102, 148, 192. Cecil, Wm. See Burghley. Chain-pump, 54. Challoner, Sir Thos., 83. Chamberlain, 30, 91, 95, 105. Chambers, Jas., 152. Chancery, 92, 146, 147, 241. Chapmen, 167, 196. Chauntrell, 108. Charcoal, 108, no, 177, 179, 182, 183, 193. Charles I, 7, 12, 13, 28, 35, 5^, 54, Ch.iii, 93, 96, 99, 112, 113, 122, 125, 131, 186, 197, 226, 241, 245, Chemicals, 8. Chester, 11. Chiddingfold, 68. Chilworth, 56. Cinque Ports, 115. Civil list, 17, 132. Civil war, 35, 40, 58, 79, 80, 99, no, in. Clamor, 78, 168, 170. Clarendon. See Hyde, Edw. Clavell, Sir Wm., 88. Clode, 8. Cloth, cloth trade, cloth dressing, cloth mer- chants, cloth licenses, cloth manufacturers, cloth workers, " whites,'* 5, 8, 10, n, 27, 59, 83, 101-106, n9, 142, 147, 165, 167, 168. Coal, sea-coal, pit-coal, stone-coal, earth-coal, turf, impositions, mines, refining, 32, 61-63, 71-89,108-111,140,142,147,150, 168, 176— 206, 214-241. Cobham, Geo., 7. Cockayne, Alderman, 103, 104, 105. Coinage, 52. Coinage, private, 97. Coke, Sir Edw., lord chief justice, 23, 24, 29, 76, 248. Coke, coking process, 54, in. Colepepper, 45. College of Physicians, 97. Comb-makers, 172, 175. Commercial monopolies, 46. Commercial classes, 19. Commissions, commissioners, 43, 50, 56, 57, 84. 87, 89, 90, 91, 92, 94, 95, loi, 121, 122, 127, 167, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175. Committee of Grievances. See Grievances. Common law. See Law. Common Pleas, 26, 137, 138, 154. Commons, House of, 6, 19-21, 25, 26, 28, 31, 32, 33, 160, 161, 218. Commonwealth, 79. Companies. See Corporations. Compensation, 16, 76. Complaints, 20, 30, 77, 168. Competition, foreign and domestic, 58, 61, 65, 67. 72. 73> 77.79>8o, 103, 112, 113, 118, 126, 130. Compositions, 12, 13, 16, 84, 122, 171, 172, »73> '74. 178, 186. Concealments, 167, 172, 174. Concentration of production, of operations, 16, 36, 61, 122, 126. Conflict of grants, 28, 109. Coningsby, Sir Richard, 30, 147. Contractors, 56, 59, 83, 84, 89, 90, 91, 95, 96, 124. Conway, Sec, 93, 94, 119. Cope, 26, 86, 87, 89. Copley, Capt. Jno., no. Copper, 50, 51, 55, 60, 61, 82, 177, 181, 182, 191, 200. Copper money, 97. Copperas, 82. Cordage, 9, 144. Com, 9, 10, 143, 147, 154, 168, 203. Corn-mill, 4. Cornwall, 57. Cornwallis, Thos., 147, 149, 151, 152. Corporations, municipal and private, 21, 35, 37. 41. 44. 79. I". "3. "7. "3. n^> '55. 172. Corruption, 17, 41, 127, 132. Cottages, 171, 173. Cottington, Lord, 115, 123. Cotton industry, 28. Covenants, 122, 126. Craford, John, 143, 145. Cranick, Burchsard, 63. Creditors, 87, 89. Cromwell, Oliver, 54, no. Cromwell, Richard, 54. Crutched Friars, 69. INDEX 255 Cumberland, 50. Cumberland, Countess of, loS. Cunningham Wm., 60, 96, 106, IlS, 123, Z48. Currants, 147, 150. Customs duties. &ee Duties. Customs, collectors and farmers, 54, 97, 99, 116. Darby, Abram, no. Darcy, Edw., 22, 23, 24, 143, 149, 151, 152. Davies, J., 113, 114, 115, 116, 247. Dean, Forest of, 57, 70, 107. Debates on monopolies, 20 fit., 28, 74, 76, 113. Debts, 87, 89, 90, 93, 95, 97. Decrees, 44, 120, 126. Delakay, 68. Delves, Geo., 27. Denizens, 167, 194. Deptford, 144. Pevon, 57. De Vos, 82. D'Ewes, Sir Simonds, 10, 18, 20, 113, 152, Z48. Dice, 42, 172. Diplomacy, foreign, 30, 40. Dispensations, dispensing licenses and com- missions, 9, 12-14, '3S> I3'> 148, 167. Diversification of industry, 6, 79, 129. Dolyn. See Becku. Domestic system, 6. Dorset, Earl of, 26. Draining, 8, 52, 53, 54, 62, 63, 66, 147, zoo, 203. Drake, Richard, 17, 143, 149, 151, 152. Dredging, 8. Dressing, 103, 105. Droitwich, 118. Duckett, 50. Dudley, Edward, Lord, 71, 109, 141, 193-247. Dudley, Dud, 60, 71, 79, 108-111. Duke, Jno., 116. Durham, 103, 106, 249. Dunning, 44. Duties, revenue and protective, 38, 60, 68, 76, 102, 113, 114, 118, 183, 222, 225, 234, 235. Dyeinganddyers, 11,84, 99, 102, l°3> ^°S'^^^< 179. Dyer, Sir Edw., 14, 146, 148. East India Co., 131. Ector, D., 144. Eld, Geo., 176. Edw. Ill, 5, 21, 22. Edw. VI, 44. Egerton, Baron EUesmere, lord keeper, 18, 30. Ehrenberg, 50. Elizabeth, Queen, ch. i, 27, 31, 33, 35, 36, 43, 52, 62, 68, 82, 98, 112, 140, 142, 156, 160, 163, 206, 245, 246. EUesmere. See Egerton. Elliots, 29. Ellis, 15. Emigration, 74. Employees. See Workmen. Encouragement, 60, 62, 81, no, 131,188,208. Encroachments, 172, 174. Engines, 56, 63, 65, 108, 178, 182-189, '94> 195, 209, 210, 211, 220, 223, 225, 227, 229, 237. 238. ^40- Engrossing, engrossers, 56, 116, 127. Entrepreneurs. See Undertakers. Entrepreneur, king as, 39, 40, 84, 89, 90, 100. Essex, 142, 144. Evelyn, Jno., 68. Exceptions in statute of monopolies, 34, 96, 109. Exchequer, 17, 31,43, 85, 94, 95,98, 186, 198, 199, 202, 204, 222, 232, 236, 238, 239, 240. Exchequer, Court of, 26, 56, 73, 127, 137, 138, •S'l '54. 195. ^". "i. "3. "4. »39- Excise, 42, iz6, 131, 132. Exeter, 57. Expansion, 6, 62, 129, 130, 131. Experiments, 7, 59, 71, 89, 98, 105, 107, no, ni, n2, 193, 215. Exploitation, 17, 36, 65, 83, 109, 119, 129, 132. Exports, export licenses, 8-11, 14, 15, 17, 27, 54, 102-105, "3' "3. '^T. 170, 171. 174. 234. Extensions of patent. See Reissue. Fagniez, 5. Farms, farmers, 40, 51, 54, 56, 59, 72, 83-98. Farmer, Simon, 143, 145, 151, 152. Farthing tokens, 45. Favorites, 80, 132. Fines, 43, 44, 120, 121, 172, 175. Firth, C. H., 98. Fiscal policy, 14, 15, 31, 40, 41, 104, 128, 131. Fishing towns, 114, 115. Fitzwilliams, Wm., 27. Flax, 9, 142, 148. Fleet, 120. Fleetwood, 13. Fleming, solicitor-general, 21, 23. Flood, Dr. Robt., 29, Forcett, Edw., 70, 215. Foreigners. See Aliens. Forestallers, 116. Forests. See Woods. Forestry, 107. Forfeitures, 15, 73, 76, 164, 172, 175, 189, 194, 205, 238, 241. Foulke, Roger, 197-205. Fournier, 4. Fowles, Sir David, 83. France, 3, 4, 5, 30, 58, 77, 103, n3, 181, 197, 214, 226. 256 INDEX Freeman, Martin, 91, 91. Fuel, 55, 56, 68, 70, 74, 75, 107, 109, 176, 178, 179, 182-6, 189, 203, 209, 214, 220, 221, 226. Fuggers, 50. Fuller, 18, 23, 24, 56. Furnaces, 8, 56, 78, 89, 108, III, 176-187, 191- 195, 211, 222-240. Fusing of ores, 54, iii, 179. Fustians, 27. Galloway, R. L., 63, Z49. Games, gaming-houses, 9, 147, 149, 151, 152. Gardiner, S. R., 30, 31, 32, 44, 71, 104, 106, 121, 122, 125, 249. George, Sir Thos., 146. Germany, 4, 64, 71, 103. Glass, glasses, glass-houses, glass-furnaces, glass-makers, glass-smelting, glaziers, 3, 4, j, 8, 9, 28-32, 67-81, 107, 140, 143, 145, no, 'S*. 157. I77i 179. "9'. 2i4-»4'- Gibson, Sir Jno., 98, 99. Gig-mill, 9, 12, 13, 146, 149. Gilds, 5, 7, 37. Gisborough, 88. Gloucester, 57. Gloucestershire, 57, 105. Gold, 50, 55, 181, 200, 201, 203, 204. Gold and silver thread, 31, 32. Gold and silver foliat, 167. Golden speech, 22, 160. Gordon, J. W., 28, 250. Grain. See Com. Gray, Wm., 79, 247. Grazebrook, 70. Gresham, Sir Thos., 50. Grievances, 9, 25, 26, 27, 45, 76, 78, 112, 132, 156, 166-171, 218. Grinding-machines, 7, 8. Grocers, 15, 38, 121. Guilford, 68. Gun-metal, 10. Gunpowder. See Powder. Gutstring-makers, 172, 175. Hale, 149, 152. Hales, Jno., 6, 246. Hall, Hubert, 17. Hallam, 4. Hallen, C, 68, 69, 70, 74, 249. Hanbery, 56, 58. Hansards, 44. Harding, 145. Harding, Edward, 127. Hardres, Sir Thos., 127, 248. Harington, Sir Jno., 19, 246. Hartshome, A., 68, 69, 74, 249. Haslemore, 177. Hatband-makers, 172, 175. Harris, Valentine, 149, 152, Hart, Sir Percival, Kt., 70, 215. Hay, 168, 171, 174. Hayes, Jno., et al., 127. Hayes, Thos., 216, 217. Hayward, Sir Thos., 216, 217. Hearths, 178, 182, 184, 185, 186. Hemp, 9, 142, 148. Henry VI, 32. Heniy VII, 44. Henry VIII, 44. Henry, Prince, 44, 108, 186. Henzeys, 68, 69, 70, 72, 74, 79, 80. Henzey, Edw., 74. Henzey, Joshua, 73. Herbert, 26. Herrings, 171, 174. Hewins, W. A. S., 107, 249. Hide, Laurence, 21. Hides, 147, 148. Highbury, 179. Hopton, Reynold, 143, 145. Horns, homers, 150, 172, 175. Horsey, Sir Geo., Kt., 197-205. Horth, Thos., 115, 116. Hostmen, 140. Hot-press, 167. Houdoy, 3. Houghton, Jno., 79, 247. Houghstetter, Daniel, 50, 51, 61, 63. Houghstetter, Jos., 53. Howell, J., 74, 247. Howes, Edm., 246. Hubbers, Henry, 191, 192. Hull, 142. Hulme, E. W., 5, 8, 9, 18, 56, 63, 67, 69, 112, 249. Humphrey, Wm., 55, 56. Hungary, 71. Hunsdon, Lord, 142. Huntingdon, Earl of, 82. Husband, £., 126, 248. Hyde, Edw., Earl of Clarendon, 41, 42, 43, H7- Illicit trading and producing, 10, 16,38,59, 83, 85, loi, 125, 126. Immigrants, immigration, 81, 107, 129. Impeachment, 32, 33. Importation, 11, 76, 117, 168, 171, 224, 225. Importation restrained, 40, 58, 69, 73, 77, 84, 96, 101, 116, 120, 121, 123, 130, 133, 218, 2'9. ^37- Imposts, impositions, 32, 114, 117, 127, 147, 183. Imprisonment, 115, 120, 121, 126, 189, 194, 210. INDEX 257 ImproTements, 29, 35, 56, 61, 62, 80, 130. Indosures, 12. Incorporation, 37-40, 50, 56, 102, 114, 115, 119, 123-127, 175. Indentures, 39, 50, 76, 98, 114, 120, 126, 172, 180, 181, 184, 190, 191, 228, 230, 241. Independent producers, 39, 72, 74, 116, 117, 120, 121, 122, 126. Industrial history, Pt. II. Inertia of patentees, 52, 58, 59. Infringements and infringers, 15, 43, 44, 57, 69, 71. 73> 76. 85, 109, 119, 120, 122, 233. Inglested, Rudolph, 143. Ingram, Sir Arthur, 84-96, loi. Initiative in legislation, 19, 120. Initiative, private, 129, 130. Inns. See Ale-houses. Insolvency, 86, 90. Interest, usury, 83, 88, 95, 105, 129. Interlopers, 106, 165. Introduction of foreign arts and artisans, 5, 6, 24. Instruments, 179-191, 195, 203, 211. Inventions, inventors, 4, 7, 8, 9, 14, 16, 18, 24, 35. SS^ S*. 57, 60, (>i-(>l,li, 80, 108-114, 119, "4> 13', '37, 138, 147, 154, »72, 175-193, 198, 207-210, 214, 215, 226, 231. Investigation, 17, 18, 22, 25, 32, 45, 78, 84, 88, 91, 9^> 93, 94, 95, "6, "6, '56, i'3- Investment and investors, 77, loi, 108, 129, 131. Ireland, 11, 177, 178, 181, 184, 197, 207, 209, 214, 215, 226, 231-239. Irish yarn, 157. See Linen yarn. Iron, iron industry, iron-mining, iron-works, iron-founders, iron-making, iron-wire, iron- ore, iron smelting, 5, 10, 45, 56, 58, 63, 67, 70, 72, 82, 88, 107-HI, 141-150, 168, 171- 206. Isleworth, 59. Islington, 178. Italy, 4. James 1, 7, 12, 18, ch. ii, 37, 45, 51, 82, 93, 98- 106, 112, 119, 163, 166, 169, 181, 193, 214, 236, 244, 245. Johnson, Robt., 88-92. Johnson, Sam'I, 105. Joint stock, 35, 122, 131. Jones, Roger, 119, 126, 207-212. Jones, Thos., 86. Judgment delayed, 126, 127. Jugs (stone). See Pots. Justice, 164, 193, 237, 240. Justice, courts of, 170. Juion, 123. Kellaway, Robt., 216, 217. Kelp, 172, 174, 177. »o8, 209. Kempe, 68, 72. Kempe, Jno., 5. Kent, 68, 107, 142, 144, Keswick, 51. King's Bench, 22, 26, 137, 138. Kiike, 148. Kingswinford, 70. Klostermann, 3. Knevett, Thos., 143. Kohler, 3. Knowles, Lilian Tomn, 248. Laborers. See Workmen. Lace, bone-, 45, 172, 174. Lake, Thos., 144. Lamond, Miss, 6. Lampems, 45, 172, 174. Lapis calaminaris. See Calamine stone. Larousse, 4. Lastage and ballastage. See Ballasting. Latten, 55, 59, 60. Laud, Archbishop, 122-125. Launcelot, Bishop of Winchester, 169. Law, common law, law courts, law trials, law- yers, 17-22, 25-35, 45, 56, 76, 77, 80, 124- 127, 132, 136, 157, 163, 164, 168, 205, 216. Lead, lead mining, 51-56, 61, 62, 88, 142, 150, 177, 181, 182, 191, 200. Leaden seals, 45. Leases, 52, 53, 59, 63, 79, 90, 94-100, 114. Leather, buffes, 8, 9, 13, 14, 83, 143, 146, 148, 150, 152, 157, 167. Legitimacy of a patent, 24, 79. Leicester, 50. Lennox, Duke of, 27. Le Vaillant de la Fieffe, 68. Levant, 47. Levasseur, 5. Liberties, 18, 132. Licensing system, 9, 16, 65, 85. See Exports. Lilbume, Jno., 126, 247. Linen cloth, 119, 172. Linen yam, 11, 142, 147, 157. Lists, shreds, and horns, ill, 143, 147, 148, 150, 151, 152, 167. Litigation, 109, 120, 126. Lodge, 145. Logwood, 26, 171, 174. London, 22, 29, 37, 38, 40, 57, 59, 60, 74, 78, 83, 84, 88, 97, 99, 102, 107, 1 14-126, 139, 142, 144, 158, 171, 172, 174, 209, 218. London, suburbs, 39. Longe, Geo., 68. Lopaz, Dr., 143. Lords, House of, 6, 33, 78, 99. Lorraine, 67, 68, 80. Losses, 31, 83, 90. Low Countries, 4, 29, 30, 67, 103, 106. Lowe, 91, 92. 258 INDEX li^it, 209, 210. Lyndsey, 59. Lynn, 14Z. Machines. See Engines. Malynes, Gerard, 52, 83, S4, 90, 246. Mansell, Sir Robt., 29, 72-81, 141, 214-241. Mantua, 77. Markets, 65, 167. Martin, Anthony, 143. Martin, Sir Richard, 56. Mart town. See Staple. Master workmen, small masters, 16, 36, 37, 67, 102, 120-125. Matthews, £liz., 149, 151, 152. Maxwell, James, 141. Mechanical inventions. See Inventions. Mefflyn, 71. Meikleham, R. S., 249. Melcomb Regis, 115. Mendip, j6. Mercantilism, 58, 104, 106. Merchant Adventurers, 11, 44, 102-106, 165. Merchant Adventurers, New, 104, 105, 106, .65. Merchants, 36, 67, 83, 84, 88, 89, 103, 105, 116, 165, 172, 174. Merret, C, 79, 247. Messengers of Chamber, 72, 122, 158. Metals, 50, 52, 61, 176-185, 189, 190, 197-201. Meysey, 29. Michell, Sir Francis, 32. Middleburgh, 86, 92, 106, 165. Middlemen, 11, 123. Middlesex, 59, 142, 144, 186. Milford Haven, 74. Mills, 55, 108, 177, 178, 182-187, *oo- Mines, miners, mining, minerals, 8, 49-63, 66, 154. 177, 19'. '97. 200-205. Mineral and Battery works, 55-61. Mines royal, 197, 201, 203. Mints, 54, 55, 203, 204. Mismanagement, 58, 98, 100. Misselden, £., 106, 246. Mompesson, Sir Giles, 32. Monpeson, Richard, 143. Montgomery, Philip, Earl of, 72, 216, 217. Moore, Sir Francis, 23, 248. More, 26. Morley, Thos., 149, 153. Morris, Peter, 63. Monmouthshire, 56. Motive of grants, 64, 74, 125. Mountjoy, Earl of, 82. Mulgrave, Earl of. See Sheffield, Edm. Mulgrave, castle and manor, 98. Municipal monopolies, 3, 4, 37. Murdin, 142. Murford, Nicholas, 114, 115, 116. Mutio, Theseus, 4. Myddleton, Sir Hugh, 52, 53, 54. Myddleton, Lady, 53. National economy, 6, 129. Native industries, 116, 117. Naunton, Sir Robt., 17, 247. Navy, 107, 214. Neri, A., 79. Nesbit, 3. Netherlands. See Low Countries. Neville, Sir H., 143, 151, 152. Newcastle, 62, 74, 78, 79, 97, 114, 117, 140. New draperies, 27, 31, 32, 45, 103, 157, 168. Newfoundland, 116. Noell, Sir Henry, 143, 149, 151, 152. Non obstantes, 154. Norden, John, 107, 143, 148, 152, 246. Norfolk, II, 142. Norfolk, Duke of, 142. Normandy, 68, 80. Northampton, 30. Norton, Bonham, 149, 153. Norwich, 6. Nottingham, Lord, 75. Nottinghamshire, 177. Nova Scotia, 172. Noy, Wm., 18, 24, 56, 248. Nullification of patents, no, 196, 205, 215, 216, Oil, 8, 9, 120, 121, 149, 150, 151, 152,156,168. Oldys, 10. Oppenheim, 75. Opposition, 17, 20-26, 32, 69, 74, no, 115, 124. Oppression, 27, 170. Ordish, T. F., 113, 249. Ordnance, 10, 51, 139, 143, 151, 152, 168. Ordinaries, See Taverns. Orlandini, 68, 69. Ovens, 8, in. Overman, 120. Oxford, 117. Page, Wm., 5, 67, 112, 249. Pakington, Sir Jno., 15, 143, J44, 149-53. Palmer, 29. Palmer, Andrew, 119, 126, 207-212. Paper, 3, 8, 9, 142, 145, 151, 152, 168. Parker, Jno., 147. Parkman, Francis, 5. Partnership and partners, 92, no. Parry, 26. Peat, 57, 197, 198, 199, 203. Pelts, 10, 147, 157. Pembroke, 50, 169. Penal statutes, 12, 163, 164. Penalties, 44, 76, 172, 175, 189, 194, 210, 241. Pensioners, pensions, 16, 17, 71, 91, 96, 217. INDEX 259 Penzarii, I2Z. Percival, Thos., 71, 215-217. Perkins, Christopher, Kt., 192. Personal government of Charles, 41-2, 112. Peterson, Wm., 107, 142. Petitions, 21, 45, 163, 169, 181, 197. Pettus, Sir J., 50, 52, 247. Pewterer, 59. Pilchards, 149, 150. Pindar, Sir Paul, 93, 96-100. Pins, pinmakers, 30, 40, 59, 60. Playing-cards. See Cards. Plumstead Marshes, 8. Policies of (marine) assurance, 146. Policy of state, 14, 37, 40, 60, 128, 130. Political history, Pt. I. Poole, 115. Pope, 82, 83. Portland, Earl of. See Weston. Potash, izo, 209, 211. Pots (stone), bottles, heath brush, 143, 149, 150, 151, 152, 157, 168. Pottery, 191. Pouldavies, 149, 153, 156, 157. Powder, 139, 150. Powder-boxes, bullet-boxes, flasks, 143, 145. Powle, no, 247. Prerogative, 17-23,44, 154, 155, 158, 163, 184, 189, 210. Prices, 29, 40, 59, 72-77. 82, 83, 84, 90, 91, loi, 104, 107, 109, 112-117, 120-125, 2°3) *°8> 212, 214, 218, 219, 222, 229, 234, 235. Printing and printing licenses, 3, 139, 143, 146, 148, 149, 152, 153, 168, 178. Proclamations against monopolies, 22, 113,116, 156, 163, 166, 173. Proctor, Thos., 107, 142. Profits, 15, 16, 29, 42, 52-58, 75, 82, 83, 86, 87, 88, 91-98, loi, 113, 122, 124, 126, 161, 178, 184-191, 200, 201, 207, 208, 209, 221, 223, 227. Progress, 79, 129, 130. Projects, projectors, 17, 30, 31, 39, 42, 43, 44, 55, 60, 70, 71, 82, 83, 84, 94, 96, 102, 103, 104, 108, 114, 115, 119, 126, 127, 129, 131, 132, 178, 179, 214, 215. Promoters, 82, 89. Proposals, 75, 87, 89, 90, 94, 103, I04, 115. Prosecutions, 15, 56. Prospectors, 52, 55. Prosperity, 70, 85, 99. "Protection" to debtors, 50, 55, 86, 89, 90, 163. Protection (trade), 10, 101,113, 130. S« Im- portation and Exports. Protection to foreign workmen, 5. Protector. See Cromwell, 118. Protestants, 68, 129. Protests vs. monopolies, 26, 27, 28. Prothero, G. W., 21, 31, 33, 43, 249. Pumps, pumping, 53, 62. Punishments, 15, 73, 95, 158, 194, 195, 212, 224, 234, 236, 237, 239. Purbeck, Isle of, 74. Quarrels, 69, 71, 94, 114. Queen's Bench. See King's Bench. Quicksilver, 50, 55, 200, 201. ^ao warranto, 1.1), 30, 154, 172, 175. Raleigh, Sir Walter, 10, 17, 21, 146, 148, 151) 152. Ramsey, David, 64, 197-205. Raw materials, 123, 126. Re, Isle of, 113. Recall of grants, 45, 175. Reference, referees, 18, 26, 32, 33, 58, 75, 76, 126. Refiners and refining, in, 116, 178, 200, 201, 204. Reforms, 30, 31, 169. Regrators, 11, 116. Regulation of industry, 6, 14, 36, 39, 52. Reissue, 8, 27, 76, 80, no. Renewal of lease, 67, 70, 76, 80, 82, 98. Renouard, 4, 5. Rents to crown, 15, 16, 28, 31, 32, 39, 41, 42, S^' 53' 54. 64. 68, 70, 71, 78, 86, 87, 88, 96, 98, 99, 116, 120, 123, 124, 186, 198, 199, 201, 205, 217, 219, 228, 229, 232, 235, 240. Rents to projectors, patentees, or companies, 51, 59, 84, 178. Reports, 85, 127, 156. Restrictions upon industry, 128, 130. Restraint of trade, 132. Results, economic, political, and legal, of the monopoly policy, 61, 70,71, 96,99, 101,110, 131, 132. Retail, retailers, 116, 117, 121, 194, 209, 222, 227, 230, 231, 235. Revenue, parliamentary, 31, 67, 104, 126, 132, 171. Revenue from monopolies, 31, 41, 42. Reversion of farm, 98. Reversion, grant in, 70. Revocations, 8, 22, 28-34, 38, 45, 70, 71, 76, 100, 108, 116, 122, 125, 143, 144, 154, 155, 157, 163, 167, 173, 174. Reward of invention, 184, 193. Reward of servants and favorites, 14. Richardson, 118. Richmond, Lady, 45. Roberts, Jas., 152. Robinson, Henry, 117, 247. Rochelle, 113. Rochester, Robt., Vise, Baron of Warwick, 108, 178, 181, 187, 191. Rogers, J. E. T., 117. Rolvenson, Jno., 108, 246. 26o INDEX Royalist, 41, no. Royalties, 50, 51, 52, 201-204. Rushworth, J., 44-45, 120, 248. Russell, Thos., 91. Rymer, 5. S-, W-, (Gent.), 28, 247. Sail-cloth, 8. St. Bartholomew, massacre of, 68. St. Giles without Cripplegate, 59. St. James, 186, 187. Sale of concessions, 41, 42. Salisbury, Earl of. See Cecil, Robt. Salt, salt-makers, salt manufacture, salt trade, 8, 9, 17, 21, 28, 45, 112-U8, 121, 124, 142, 150, 156, 168. Salter, Edw., 70, 71, 215. Saltpeter, saltpetermen, 7, 8, 9, 139, 145, 149, 150, 157, 163. Savoy, The, 49. Schetts, Ede., 145. Schuermans, H., 74. Schiedame, Jno., 5. Scire jaciai^ 30, 175. Scotland, 77, 113, 117, 172, 177, 178, 181, 182, 184, 214, 224, 225, 226, 235, 236. Scrope, Lord, 51. Sealing, 27, 39, 40, 143, 172, 174. Search, searching, survey, 9, 36, 40, 119, 120, 123, 127, 144, 174, 190, 199, 200, 211, 222, "3' ^34. 236, 237, 238. Sea-weed, 172, 174. Secrets and secrecy, 65, 80, 81, 109, no, ill, 124. Servants, 17, 73, 74, 75, 80, 88, 117, 161, 163, 195, 196, 203, 208, 211, 223, 226, 227, 236- 239. See Workmen. Shares and shareholders, 50, 51, 56, 84, 108, 131, 186, 187, 191. Sheffield, Edm., Baron, 83, 85, 96-100. Sheepskins, 172, 174. Shields, South and North, 114-118. Ships, shipping, shipwrights, 5, 74, 75, 83, 96, 112, 117, 168, 169, 193, 214, 238. Ship-money, 43. Shrewsbury, Earl of, 145. Shrewsbury, 6, 13. Singer, Sir Henry, 149, 152. Shutz, Cornelius, 55, 57, 61. Silk-weavers, 39, 40. Silver, 50-55, 181, 200-204. Slingsby, Sir Wm., 71. Slitting-mills, 142. Smalt, 29, 141. Smith, Wm., 147. Smuggling. See Illicit trading. Soap, soap-boilers, 7, 8, 36, 42, 93,94,112, 116, 1 19-128, 207-213. Somers, 31, 160. Somerset, 57. Southampton, 114, 115. Southwark, 179. Spain, 103, 1 131 Sparke, Robt., 148. Specifications, 35, 65, 108. Speculation, 55, 81, 93, 127. Spectacle-makers, 172, 175. Spedding, 105. Speyer, Johann von, 3. Spillman, John, 142, 145, 151, 152. Stafford, Sir Edw., 146. Staffordshire, 70, 72, 109. Stamps, 28, 200, 204. "Stand" of cloth, 104, 105. Stanhope, Michael, 144, 149, 151, 152. Staple, 106, 165. Star Chamber, 43, 44, 53, 92, 120, 121, 126. Starch, starchmakers, 8, 9, 15, 16, 37, 38, 142, 144. 149. '5'. '5^. '57- Statute of monopolies, 33, 34, 35, 37, H2, 123, 126, 135-141. Steel, 145, 149, 150, 151, 152, 157, 176, 182, 191. Steere, Thos., 56, 57. Steynberg, 49, 50, 51. "Stock." See Capital. Stourbridge, 70, 71. Stow, J., 16, 69, 246, 249. Strafford, Earl of, 98, 99. Strangers. See Aliens. Straw, 168, 171, 174. Stringer, M., 60, 247. Strype, 16, 249. Stuarts, 19, 37, 44, 64, 69, 248. Stuard, Mark, 143. Stuard, Simon, 143. Stubbes, Wm., 142. Sturtevant, Simon, 71, 107, 108, 176, 180-192, 246. Subsidies, parliamentary, 40, 50. Suffolk, Earl of, lord treas., 30, 90. Suffolk Co., 142, 144. Sulphur, brimstone, 8, 148, 152. Suppression, 68, 73, 97. Surrender of grants, 27, 104,106, 114, 167,175. Surrey, 56, 68, 71, 142, 144, 167, 177. Suspension of privileges, 25, 29, 38, 45, 104, 106. Sussex, 63, 67, 68, 71, 72, 107, 142, 144, 177. Synnerton, Jno., 63. Talbot, 145. Tanning. See Leather. Taverns, 9, 50, 172, 174. Teaching Englishmen, 24, 55, 74, 79, 80. Term of privileges, 8, 76, 108, 176, 186, 187, 190-199, 203, 205, 209-212, 215, 2i6, 217, 220, 221, 227, 230, 231, 232, 235, 236. INDEX 261 Tests, public, 119, 120. Thames, 107, 144, 16S. Thelwall, Bevis, 71, 216, 217. "Thorough," 13, 39, 43. Thurland, master of the Savoy, 9, 50. Tiles, paving, 168, 182, 191. Timber. See Wood. Tin, 26, 44, 61, 63, 143, 145, 147, 148, 152, 177, 181, 182, 191 Tintern, Tintern Abbey, 56, 57, 58. Tittory, 74, 80. Tobacco, 42, 171, 173. Tobacco-pipes, tobacco-pipe makers, 167, 172, '75- Tools, 57, 88, 109, 182-189, 203. Tower of London, 52, 97, 203. Townshend, H., 20, 21, 22, 148, 150, 151, 154, 248. Tracy, Sir Thos., Ji6, 217. Trade, traders, tradesmen, trading companies, trades, 25, 102, 105, 112, 117, 123, 127, 131, 139, 163, 165, 183, 184, 207, 230, 231. Trade-mark, 210. "Translation," 39. Transportation, 57, 88, 113, 165, 171, 177,204, 209. Transmutation, 82. "Treasure," 102, 208. Treasury, 31, 41, 122. 5e« Exchequer. Trees. See Woods. Trent River, 74. Trinity House, 144. Tudors, 5, 6, 19. Turkey, 57. Turf, 197, 198, 199, 203. Turner, Wm., 84-90, 94, 96, 97. Tynemouth, 114. Tyzacks, 68, 69, 74, 79, 80. Tyzack, Paul, 72. Undertakers, adventurers, 44, 52, 67, 79, 87, 91, 106, 187. United Provinces. See Low Countries. Unwin, Geo., 6, 30, 39, 40, 60, 102, 103, 104, 106, 250. Venice, 5, 67, 68, 77, 235. Verriers gentilshommes, 68. Verselini, Giacopo, 69, 70, 74, 80, 143. Vematti, Sir Philibert, 109. Villiers, Sir Edw., 32. Villiers, Christopher, 32. Vinegar, 9, ^l^i-y>, 156. Vischer, Giles, 143. "Voyage," 131. Wade, W., 148, 152. Waechter, 3. Wages, 40, 50, 57, 78, 88-91, 95, 100, 203. Wales, 40, 50, 52, 57, 61, 177-234- Wales, Prince of, 189. Warrants, 73, 115, 121, 172, 174, 175. Water-power, 57, 59. Water-raising, 8, 62, 63. Water-supply, 66. Watkins, Wm., 148, 152. Welldon, Sir Anthony, 41, 247. Welsh, Richard, 148, 152. Wentworth, 123. Westminster, Westm. Co., 120-126, 142, 144, 159, 171, 174, 186, 196, 206, 213, 214, 226. Weston, Sir Richard, lord treas.. Earl of Port- land, 122, 123, 124. Weymouth, 115. Wheat, bran, flour, 38, 142, 143, 144. Whitehall, 160, 169. Wight, Isle of, 82. Wight, Thos., 149, 153. Wilkes, Thos., 8, 17, 112, 113, 142. Wiltshire, 57. William, Bishop of St. David, 169. Wimmes, 145. Winchester House, 74, 179. Windebank, Thos., 144, 146. Windebank, secretary, 78. Wines, 26, 42, 124, 140, 146, 148, 151. See Taverns, Licenses. Wine-cask, 167, 172, 174. Wire, 55-60. Woad, 146, 149, 152, 158. Wood, woods, destruction of, 50, 57, 67-75, ^^' 89, 107, 109, 172, 174, 179, 182, 183, 193, 203, 214-221, 226, 227, 228. Wool, 10, II, 121, 142, 144, 145, 149, 151, 152, 167, 168. Wool-cards, 57, 58. Worcester, 6. Worcestershire, 70, 71, 72, 109. Worcester, Marquis, 30, 64, 247. Workmen, 50, 56-59, 67, 68, 77, 78, 79, 83, 86, 88, 89, 100, loi, 102, 105, 123, 203, 207, 224, 227, 230, 232. See Servants. Yarmouth, 115. Yarranton, A., no, 247. York, Duke of, 108, 178, 187-191. York, 45, 125. York House, 88, 175. Yorkshire, 83, 91, 95, 96, 97, 100. Young, Richard, 15, 142. Zealand, 165. Ziilc, 55, 59, 60, 61. Zouch, Sir Edw., 71, 72, 76, 80, 216, 117. ■rf TJ-— vfe-j ^■hM^P%^&- I^'^'^S! , ^T^H. '«, a 1, -Iff I J , r