2

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 £700, then quarreled with his partners, and his royalist 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 quantities 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 experiments, 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 probably 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 revealing his secrets, and whether his

1 Metallum Martis, p. 64.

2 Pat. 14 Car. I, pt. 43 (May 2, 1638). Appendix U. 3 Metallum Martis, pp. 64, 65.

♦ Similar undertakings enjoyed two of the few patents granted during the Interregnum. 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, 1681, pt. ii, pp. 159-169, show that, after Dudley, charcoal rather than coke was being used. See Dict. Nat. Biog. article Darby (Abram).

privileges were useless to him, or prejudicial to the country at large, cannot be determined, because these patents were not enjoyed under normal conditions. After serious difficulties in establishing 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 applied. 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 successful 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 difficult 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 impossible to decide, for the processes were kept secret. The apparent failure to produce a satisfactory article may or may not have been entirely due to the improper way in which the coke was employed. Certainly there was no lack of experiments. The number of patents was out of all proportion to the results.1

1 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 measures, renders the history of most of these monopolies less significant 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 monopolies will be considered.

Salt evaporation had been carried on, upon the east coast, probably before the reign of Elizabeth, 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 immediately thereafter from the eastern ports. It was this monopoly which was the chief grievance in the Parliament of 1601, at which time it was claimed that Wilkes and his deputy had raised the price 1 Lansd. 47, nos. 67, 68.

2 Page, Denizations, p. xlix; Hulme, L. Q. R. April, 1896, p. 149; January, 1900,

P. 47.

Pat. 27 Eliz. pt. 6 (September 1, 1585); Pat. 28 Eliz. pt. 5 (February 20, 1586). ♦ C. R. March 22, 1587; Lansd. 47, nos. 67, 68, 69; Lansd. 52, no. 20.

of salt from 14d. to as many shillings per bushel.1 The iniquities of the patent were acknowledged by the queen after the debate on monopolies, 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 localities. 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 supplies of salt were difficult to obtain, especially after the English destroyed the saltworks on the Isle of Ré, 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 similar edict there. Finally, in 1630 a proclamation was issued by Charles forbidding the export of English salt, a not very necessary measure. When the occasion was removed, the French and Spanish edicts were suspended and salt became cheap again in England, costing £3 or £3 10s. 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 prosperity 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

1 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. 2 ff.

At London a wey=40 bu., a bu. = 10 gal. The measure differed at each port.

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 producers. An imposition of 10s. per wey was to be paid to the king, the petitioners undertaking to sell at £4 or £5 per London wey.1 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 SaltMakers 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 15s. to £6, while west of Southampton the price remained at £3 and 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 relief. Not only were the subjects injured, 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 English and Scottish corporations to furnish the city of London and to supply his Majesty's occasions and expenses in household as heretofore." 5

3

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. Differences 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

1 C. R. February 22, 1635.

Davies, pp. 6, 7.

Docq. January, 1636.

C. R. November 13, 1636; May 30, November 27, 1637; December 19, 1638. C. R. May 9, 1637. • Docq. November, 1632.

7 C. R. July 15, 1638.