patent, as the majority were weary of the opposition which the monopoly was encountering, and perhaps of the policy of the managers. The salt-makers of Shields resumed their pans, and thereafter, for a time, English and Scottish salt was sold in London at £3. Almost at once, however, it was planned to transfer the monopoly 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 business, made an application 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 forthwith established." " 6 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," 1 Davies, p. 7. S. P. D. C. I, cccviii, nos. 8 and 9. The calendar assigns an incorrect date. 1 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. • True Remonstrance, date of December 19, 1638. C. R. December 5, 1638 7 Davies, p. 7. 197, 198. 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 investigation, 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 commissions, which was a measure taken by the Privy Council in anticipation of the meeting of Parliament. 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.' 5 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 sufficient quantity had been provided, and at low prices. It was charged that the "engrossers, forestallers, and regrators" of London, 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 employment 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 subject to revocation by king or Council if found inconvenient, "it debars no man from making that formerly had any works,' no 1 C. R. December 13, 1639. 8 C. R. April 12, 1640. 5 True Remonstrance. 2 C. R. February 29, 1640. 4 November, 1640. See Davies, p. 17. • Davies. This was not exactly true, for the Council interfered with Independent pro ducers. 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.1 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 petition 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 £6 and £8. After the intervention 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 1 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 importation 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, questionless 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's Safety in Trade's Increase, London, 1641, 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 following years, the prices were: 1635, 16s.; 1636, 19s.; 1637, 18s. 8d.; 1638, 18s. 8d.; 1639, 148. 8d. and 19s. 10d.; 1640, 27s. 4d., later 16s.; 1641, 13s. to 16s. 2d. For Oxford, Rogers notes occasional purchases "at unheard of rates, at from 40s. to 50s. the quarter." (v, p. 434.) 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. During the Union of the two countries under the Protector, the industry was completely ruined.' The salt industry was not carried on successfully in England until after the discovery, in 1670, of rock salt at Droitwich.2 1 Lansd. 253, no. 17. Reproduced in Richardson's Reprints, vol. iii. It is there incorrectly cited as Lansd. 258. 2 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 protégées, 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 committee, which reported the result of the trial, expressing some doubt whether the soap was made wholly of English materials: "With much labor it will wash coarse linen (if it be used by skillful washers acquainted therewith) as well as the best sort of ordinary soap used, but far less sweet and merchantable, and it is not fit for fine linen, as it destroys the cloth." Little was done to exploit the privilege until 1631, when it was confirmed' and a company was incorporated for the purpose of buying up and working the patent. The new society, known as the Company of Soapmakers of Westminster, undertook to work the new invention 1 See above, pages 93, 94. Pats. 20 Jac. I, pt. 12, no. 10; 21 Jac. I, pt. 5, no. 2 (February 23, 1623). Appendix W. Rem. March 30, 1624. The phrase "balance of trade" had just been popularized at this time. See my article in the Quart. Jour. Econ., November, 1905, on this subject. Rep. April 6, 1624. 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. |