Anglo-French Trade Relations Under Charles Ii
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
ANGLO-FRENCH TRADE RELATIONS UNDER CHARLES 11. C~IARLES11’s Francophile policy, so slavishly followed by his immediate successor, was one ofthe leading causes of the “ Glorious Revolution’’ of 1688. The late Sir John Seeley, indeed, in his brilliant essay on the Growth of British Policy, maintained that the Revolution as a movement began as early as 1670, when Charles I1 and Louis XIV were signatories to the notorious Secret Treaty of Dover. That the French alliance was more than distasteful to a large section of the nation became increasingly evident in the second decade of Charles’s reign. In the seething cauldron of Anglo-French antagonism during this period Popish Plots were but the scum which boiled up to the surface ; the more important causes of mistrust were not religious. Englishmen had begun to realise that France was consciously aiming not merely at ascendancy in European politics, but at domination in the newly developing markets of the world. Urged on by the vigorous and comprehensive measures of Colbert, France was making a deter- mined onslaught upon both Dutch and English trade in the East and West Indies, the Baltic and on the West African coast. Hatred and fear of the French colony in Canada made England’s North American colonists yield a reluctant allegiance to their mother country. In the Newfoundland fisheries, too, a bitter conflict was raging between fishermen of both nations, while Colbert’s naval policy, which alone involved Louis XIV’s Government in an annual expenditure of thirteen million francs, and resulted in the growth of a fleet in point of numbers superior to that of England, gavc rise in the latter country to a I‘ scare ” in many respects similar to that which in recent years grceted the advent of Germany to the front rank of maritime nations. It is not surprising, therefore, to find that as the reign proceeded, Charles 11’s relations with Louis XIV became increasingly unpopu- lar with the majority of his subjects. Indeed an investigation of the above-summarisecl causes of hostility between England and France will at once reveal not only the important part they played in the drama which reached its climax in 1688, but also the fact t,hat the economic conditions so largely operative in bringing about NO.25.-VOL. VII. U 18 HISTORY [APRIL the second Hundred Years’ War had their origin during the reign of Charles 11. The economic aspect of this rivalry, in so far as the reign of Charles I1 is concerned, has received scant attention at the hands of historians, and it is the purpose of this paper to show how between 1660 and 1686, owing to the operation of the “ Mercantile System ” in both countries, a bitter tariff war grew up between England and France resulting in the virtual prohibition of all trade between them save that of the smuggler. One of the great underlying causes of this development lay in the enormous stimulus given by Colbert to French native production. In his internal economic policy the great minister organised an industrial movement in France by means of State aid to home manufactures. To this end he created and fostered the growth of what he judged to be French national industries. He granted “ immunities, indulgences, premiums, pensions, protections, etc., to foreign artists, artificers, manufacturers, etc., from all parts,” to settle with their families and workmen in France.1 He stimulated the French woollen, silk and tapestry manufactures. Workers in gold, silver, ivory and brass were procured from abroad to teach their handicrafts to French artisans. In every way measures were taken which strove on the one hand to improve the existing French manufactures, and on the other to introduce fresh ones and new branches of commerce. As a complement to this internal policy, Colbert devised the most rigid Protectionist system that Europe had up to that time witnessed. “Tout le commerce,” he once said, “ consiste B decharger les entrkes des marchandises qui servent aux manu- factures du dedans du royaume, et 8. charger celles qui sont manufactur8es.”a Fouquet, indeed, had led the way by the imposition of a duty of sfty sous a ton upon all foreign ships entering French harbours. Colbert not only maintained this tax, but, we are told, would have gone to the length of entirely pro- hibiting all foreign imports into France, had he been able effec- tively so to do.* In 1664 he prepared the way for future develop- ments by the institution of a moderate tariff upon imports from foreign countries. Three years later a much stricter system was introduced. The climax came in 1672, when Colbert’s regulations became so stringent that they were one of the leading causes of the war between France and Holland which commenced in that year. France’s greatest commercial rivals during Colbert’s term of 1 Anderson, Hietorical and Chronological Deduction of the Origin of Commerce (1764), ii. 480. * Ltlvisse, Hiatoire de France, VII. Part I. p. 236. a Ibid.. p. 230. 19221 ANQLO-FRENCH TRADE RELATIONS 19 office were Holland and England. The tariff regulations were aimed chiefly at the former, but the latter soon began keenly to resent the restriction of her export trade to France, especially her exports of woollen manufactures, which were entirely forbidden from entering the French market. In 1669 Colbert induced Van Robais, a Dutch merchant, to settle at Abbeville with five hundred workmen, there to set on foot the manufacture of woollen broad- cloth. France was indeed to be independent of England for her supplies of woollen goods. For her supplies of raw wool, however, her own sheep flocks were entirely insufficient, and she looked chiefly to England to make up for this deficiency. England, on the other hand, was as anxious as France to stimulate her own woollen manufacture. In 1661, therefore, the export of raw wool was forbidden by “ An Act for prohibiting the exportation of Wooll, Woollfells, Fullers Earth or any kinde of Scouring Earth,” 1 and the legisla- tion against the export of wool was several times reinforced by further statutes and royal proclamations throughout the reign. An extensive smuggling system naturally grew up between the Channel ports of both countries, which caused the Government much trouble and was not effectively checked.a The prohibition of the import of English manufactured goods into France combined with the influx of French manufactured goods into the English market to cause an outcry in England against the French trade. As early as 1660 a numerously signed petition had been presented by the shopkeepers and artisans of London and district to Charles 11, wherein they showed the damage to trade by import of woollen cloths, laces, ribbons, silks, etc., much increased since the peace made by Cromwell with the French.s The petitioners advised the king that the 12 Car. 11. c. 32. See also Cal. of State Papers, Domcdc, passim. a In 1664 Captain John Strode wrote to William Prynno, chairman of a Committee of the House of Commons, “ Vast quantities of wool aro transported at night along the coast from Sandwich to Newhaven, and the persons so strong, that none dare meddle with them without five files of soldiers. Nobody before looked into it, for more wool has been seized this year than in many years before; now they have spies about the castle, so that if the gate be opened, they take the alarm, and return their wool to the houses, and, pretending to be wool-combers and weavers, it cannot be seized there, though they hardly make a piece a year. They have threatened and beaten most of the officere of the Customs, and go disguised on dark nights so that no one can swear to them ; 200,000 pistoles’ worth of wool have been this year landed at French ports, bcsides what has gono to Flanders and Holland. The Walloons of Canterbury are great traders in it, and dl this side of England.” Cal. S.P.D. 1664, March 27. See also Cal. S.P.D. 1669, Oct. 28. Cal. S.P.D. 1600, Nov. 44. 03 20 HISTORY [APRIL wearing of English manufactures should be encouraged, and that of foreign goods discountenanced. In the following year it was complained that the cheaper French tapestry was driving the English manufacture from the market.’ The early methods of the English government to cope with this new problem were haphazard and tentative. In October 1665 Charles I1 announced to the Lord Mayor of London that owing to the vast sums yearly exported for foreign manufactures, while in both Holland and France vigorous methods were employed to prevent the import of English manufactures, he had resolved thenceforth to wear only clothes made of English-wrought materials. The Lord Mayor was to proclaim this resolution to the London shopkeepers, in order that they might not send abroad for laces, silks, and other imported clothing stuffs.2 The attention of Parliament was drawn to the question, and on September 22, 1666, the Commons appointed a Committee “to consider of Proposals to be tendered to the House, for Advance of the Manufactures of this Nation, and to provcnt Excess In using Foreign Manufactures.” The report of the Committee was laid before them on October 8, by Sir George Downing, and at the Committee’s suggestion the following resolutions were passed by the House : (a) “ That the Committee have liberty to draw up and tender a Bill to the House, for the prohibiting the Importation of all Sorts of Manufactures and Commodities whatsoever, of the Growth, Production, or Manufacture of France, and of all other Lands and Places in the Possession of the French King, into any Port or Place of this Kingdom, or Town of Berwicke upon Tweed.