Trade and merchandise

Sponsor

Centre for Metropolitan History

Publication

Author

W. H. and H. C. Overall (editors)

Year published

1878

Supporting documents

Pages

517-530

Citation Show another format:

'Trade and merchandise', Analytical index to the series of records known as the Remembrancia: 1579-1664 (1878), pp. 517-530. URL: http://british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=59989 Date accessed: 26 July 2014.


Highlight

(Min 3 characters)

Tithes.

[See "Ecclesiastical and Theological."]

Trade and Merchandize.

I. 3. Letter from the Lord Mayor to Sir Francis Walsingham. The Cutlers of the City had complained to him and his brethren of the great loss they had sustained by obeying the Proclamation (fn. 1) issued by Her Majesty for the regulation of their trade, which not being enforced in other cities and towns, rendered their wares unsaleable. He prayed that the Orders might be made general, and universally observed.
27th April, 1580.

I. 25. Letter from William Lord Burghley to the Lord Mayor. He had caused search to be made among the Cutlers in Westminster for swords and daggers exceeding the length limited by Her Majesty's Proclamation. Finding some disorders there in having blades in their shops contrary to the said Proclamation, the Cutlers had excused themselves, alleging that others of the same trade in London sold both swords and daggers exceeding the length prescribed. He requested that scarch should be made, and no one permitted to have any blades in their shops not reformed according to the before-mentioned Order.
28th April, 1580.

I. 54. Letter from the Lord Mayor to the Lords of the Council. Agreeably to their wishes the Court of Aldermen had called before them the Soapmakers, and entreated them to purchase Lawrence Mellow's oils at a price at which he might be a reasonable gainer. They found the Soapmakers very loth to take his oils at any price, alleging that they were inferior to the worst and cheapest sort of fish oils, except blubber oil. Mellow's hemp oil, whereof he had the greatest quantity, would make no soap alone to last, but such as would grow liquid, unless train oil were mixed with it, this they could not do unless they were discharged of their bonds, and allowed to use train oil in the making of soap, which liberty being granted to them, they would be contented to give Mellow 13l. per ton for his seed oil. Mellow stated that although his seed oil stood him in 21l. 10s. per ton, he would be contented to take 18l. per ton. The Court of Aldermen being unable to bring the parties to better terms, had directed the articles brought before them to be forwarded to their Lordships for their consideration.
(Circa 1579)

I. 77. Letter from (the Lords of the Council) to the Lord Mayor. One Lawrence Mellow had lately, at great charge and trouble, set forward an invention for the making of seed oil, a design very beneficial and profitable to the common weal. Having made about one hundred tons, and offered the same to the Soapmakers at a cheaper rate than they could buy Spanish oils, they refused to purchase it, unless at so low a rate as to entirely overthrow his trade in oil. They desired the Lord Mayor to examine into the matter, and call before him the Soapmakers, and endeavour to induce them to buy the oil at a fair and reasonable rate. If he should not succeed, he should report to the Council the steps taken.
—December, 1579.

I. 420. Letter from the Queen, under Signet, to the Lord Mayor, Sheriffs, and Aldermen, directing that the fine of 10l. inflicted by the Court held at Guildhall, before Sir James Havey, Knight, then Lord Mayor, upon Thomas Price, and Collect his wife, for shipping 200 dozen of old shoes, with intention to transport them beyond the seas, contrary to a statute made in the 5th year of Edward VI., (fn. 2) should be remitted on account of their poverty, and that they should be discharged.
Windsor Castle, 31st October, 24 Elizabeth, 1582.

II. 307. Letter from the Lord Mayor to the Lords of the Council, upon the Petition of divers Merchants, complaining that Sir Thomas Bartlett, Knight, had exhibited an information in the Crown Office against Richard Ellis, for transporting into this realm pins to the value of 90l., contrary to the statute the 5th of Elizabeth, (fn. 3) and praying that as of late the same had been tolerated, the Citizens might be permitted to trade freely in that commodity.
5th February, 1607.

II. 311. Letter from the Lord Mayor to the Lords of the Council, reporting the results of his inquiries as to the price of brimstone and Danske coporis. He found the best and cheapest brimstone was brought from foreign parts, the refined in rolls, and the unrefined in lumps, and was usually sold for 12s. or 12s. 6d. a hundred (weight), accounting 102 to the 100, and in times of war much dearer; the coporis was brought from Danskes in Poland only, and was sold at 12s. 6d. the hundredweight, and was far finer and better than any yet made in England.
—March, 1607.

II. 325. Letter from the Lord Mayor to the Earl of Salisbury, Lord Treasurer, enclosing a Petition from the shopkeepers of the Exchange, concerning a building in course of erection at Durham House, (fn. 4) in the Strand, which they considered was meant to be employed as a Pawne or Exchange, for the sale of things usually uttered in the Royal Exchange, and which, being situated near to Whitehall and in the highway, would be injurious not only to the shopkeepers but to the Citizens at large, and tend to the destruction of trade, and beseeching his Lordship to consider the consequences to the City.
30th June, 1608.

II. 340. Letter from the Lord Mayor to the Earl of Salisbury, Lord Treasurer, as to the price of alum and pewter.
18th January, 1608.

II. 342. Letter from the Lord Mayor to Sir Edward Cooke, Knight, Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, touching a suit pending before his Lordship, between Richard Joanes, of the parish of St. Botolph without Bishopsgate, and Richard Giles, of the same parish, concerning a penal statute of buying and selling wool. Giles was a very honest Wool-comber, and very useful in his craft. He besought his kind consideration in his behalf.
4th February, 1608.

II. 355. Letter from Lord Salisbury to the Lord Mayor and Aldermen, in reply to Letter No. 325, giving an account of the erecting of the Exchange, or Pawne, at Durham House, in the Strand, and the reasons for the building.
20th July, 1608.

III. 61. Letter from the Lord Mayor (Sir James Pemberton) (fn. 5) to the Lords of the Council, enclosing a Petition presented to the Court of Aldermen from the Company of Silkweavers, complaining that of late a great quantity of ribands, laces, points and other like small silk wares had been imported from foreign parts, to the great hindrance of many thousands of their own poor who worked at that trade, and maintained themselves and their families thereby. Latterly, partly by the multitude of aliens inhabiting within the kingdom who worked in those wares, and partly through the abundance of such wares ready wrought imported from foreign parts, the poor freemen were brought to great want and misery. He recommended the Petition to the favourable consideration of the Council.
(Circa 1612.)

III. 62. The Petition of the Bailiffs of the Guild or Fraternity of Weavers to the Court of Aldermen, referred to in the preceding Letter, reciting the complaints urged therein, and stating (inter alia) that they had lately endeavoured, by way of information in the Court of Exchequer against one Ricard, a Merchant Stranger, to put in execution the Act of Parliament of the 19th Henry VII. (fn. 6) prohibiting the importation of wrought silk by itself or with any other stuff, but that he had obtained a stay of proceeding by order of the Privy Council, pretending that they were repugnant to the treaty between His Majesty and the French King, whereas the Petitioners alleged that such treaty expressly excepted therefrom the importation of any merchandizes prohibited by any special laws or statutes. The Petitioners request the Court of Aldermen to intercede with the Privy Council in their behalf.
(Circa 1612.)

IV. 21. Letter from the Lord Mayor to the Lords of the Council. In Hilary Term 1st James I., an information had been exhibited in the Crown Office by Sir Thomas Bartlett, Knight, against one Richard Ellis, for importing pins, contrary to a statute of the 5th Elizabeth, revived in the 1st James I. (with an omission of a proviso contained in the former statute, permitting subjects of the realm to import pins), upon which information divers merchants in the same predicament had joined with Ellis in a Petition to the Court of Aldermen, to intercede with the Council for stay of any such suits against native subjects. Since it appeared the Merchants Strangers, who were the persons meant to be restrained by the statute, had, by special order of Her late Majesty's Privy Council to the Barons of the Exchequer, been allowed to import pins, the Council, in July, 1608, upon the report of Mr. Secretary Herbert, Sir Julius Cæsar, Sir Thomas Parry, and others, had set down an Order between the Pinners and the Merchants, and, with a view to the sale to greater advantage of pins made within the kingdom, the Lord Treasurer had imposed a duty of sixpence on every 12,000 pins imported, since which Ellis and all other merchants had been no further molested. Sir Thomas Bartlett now very vehemently pursued Ellis, contrary, as was conceived, to the Order of the Council. The Lord Mayor therefore requested the Council to issue Letters to the Judges to stay the proceedings upon the said information.
20th February, 1615.

IV. 39. Order in Council reciting that a Petition had been presented to them from the Master, Wardens, Assistants, and Commonalty of the art or mystery of Pinmakers of the City of London, showing that, the importation of foreign pins being prohibited by the laws of the realm, the King had, for divers good considerations, incorporated the Petitioners into a Company, limited to the City and three miles thereof, and had authorized them and their successors to seize all foreign pins imported, but a subsequent Order had directed that the Haberdashers should weekly take of the Petitioners such pins as they should make ready for sale, and should also have liberty to import and trade in foreign pins. The Haberdashers failing in the performance of such Order, a second had been passed, leaving the Pinmakers to help themselves by course of law. But the Pinmakers alleged that, being a poor company, they were unable to carry on their trade for want of stock; they had therefore entered into an agreement with certain persons of good ability in London, who had engaged to take their pins weekly for eight years, finding stock and money and other necessaries, whereby the kingdom would in a few years be supplied with home manufactured pins, provided that until then some toleration of a moderate importation of foreign pins might be permitted, which the Petitioners prayed might be granted for eight years, before the end of which time the terms of their apprentices would have expired, and they would have become masters able to employ a much larger number of persons in that manufacture. The Council being favourably inclined to the proposition, so far as it might be found reasonable, therefore ordered the Petition to be sent to the Lord Mayor, Sir Thomas Middleton, Sir Thomas Bennett, Sir John Jolles, Mr. Alderman Bennett, and Mr. Alderman Pyott, (fn. 7) that they, calling before them and advising with the Farmers of the Customs as to any injury to His Majesty in his Customs by the decrease of the importation of foreign pins, and also hearing the Petitioners and others interested, might report forthwith to the Council their opinions how the home manufacture might be increased and the use of foreign pins abolished, and in the mean time what quantity of foreign pins might be imported; how long such toleration should be continued, and how the Council might best be informed yearly of the increased quantity of pins made in the kingdom.
20th November, 1616.

IV. 62. Certificate from Sir Thomas Middleton and other Aldermen to the Lord Mayor and Court of Aldermen, upon the reference to them concerning the Petition of the Pinmakers' Company. They found:—

1st.—As to the injury to His Majesty in his Customs by decrease of importation of pins. They had received from the Farmers of the Customs a medium of the subsidy impost and custom of pins in the Port of London, amounting to 1,288l. per annum. The Farmers were unable in so short a time to give a precise certificate as to the outports, but estimated them at 300l. or 400l. per annum. These sums would be lost if the importation were wholly decayed; but it was said the King would receive an increase of Customs for wire.

2nd—As to increase of the manufacture. The promoters of the Patent had offered, if they had the sole right of importation, to take from the Pinmakers, weekly, all pins made by them: the Haberdashers had also offered, agreeably to the former Order of the Privy Council, to do the same, and to give security to continue it without any breach in future, and to pay on receipt of the pins, either in money or wire, at the option of the Pinmakers. The Pinmakers had pretended they would yearly increase the number of their apprentices, and so increase the manufacture, and for that purpose had offered to take three more apprentices every year until each of them employed thirty, but would give no security to that effect, so that it did not appear the State could rest assured of the expected increase of manufacture.

3rd.—As to how the Council could be certified yearly of the increase of pins made by the Pinmakers (amounting at that time to eleven thousand and one hundred dozen thousand yearly). They were of opinion the buyers, whether the Haberdashers or the promoters of the Patent, should keep a perfect account of all pins bought.

4th.—As to toleration of importation. They were of opinion a toleration was necessary, three times as many pins being imported as were made by the Pinmakers. But if the Haberdashers were appointed to take the pins and gave condition as promised, a Patent of sole importation would be needless, injurious to the King in his Customs, and to the subject.

5th—As to the proportion of Foreign pins to be imported. It could not then be tied to any proportion, but must change yearly as the home manufacture increased. If, however, the Haberdashers took the pins, it would be most beneficial to the King in his Customs not to set any limit to the importation.
(Circa 1616.)

IV. 63. Letter from the Lord Mayor and Court of Aldermen to the Lords of the Council, embodying the foregoing Certificate.
(Circa 1616.)

IV. 70. Order of the Privy Council, reciting that, having considered the Certificate of the Lord Mayor and Aldermen upon the suit of the Pinmakers, they had ordered that the Pinmakers should accept the offer of the Haberdashers, provided the latter gave sufficient security, and took the pins weekly from the workmen as suggested, but if the Haberdashers failed, the Council thought it reasonable the Pinmakers should be left to the benefit of the law.
24th March, 1616.

IV. 98. Letter from the Lords of the Council to the Lord Mayor and Court of Aldermen. The differences between the Pinmakers' Company and the traders in pins had long been pending before the Board, and many orders and references had been made thereon, none of which had had any effect, owing to the default of one or other of the parties interested, except to give occasion for new complaints. Having heard all the parties and considered a Certificate from some of the Aldermen, the Council found that the Court of Aldermen were fully acquainted with the questions in difference, and had already made some overtures for settlement thereof. They had therefore thought it good to declare their opinions to the Court, and request them to order a final course in the matter according to the following directions:—

1st—As the Council thought it not meet that any Patent for the sole importation of pins should be permitted, so they held it not fit there should in future be any further seizure by the Pinmakers of foreign pins imported, but that importation should be permitted, seeing the Pinmakers were no way able to serve the kingdom in any reasonable proportion.

2nd.—Since it was very just that the Pinmakers and their workmen should be relieved and encouraged by finding convenient sale for their pins, which had hitherto been neglected, the Council required the Court of Aldermen to direct that the Haberdashers or traders in pins should take all their pins ready for sale, and that the pins should be weekly brought to Pinmakers' Hall to be viewed, received, and bought by the traders, to be paid for in ready money unless otherwise voluntary agreed between buyer and seller.

3rd.—To prevent disputes as to the quality and value of the pins, the Lord Mayor should appoint such as he thought fit of the traders in pins, together with such as should be chosen by the Pinners, to be weekly present when and where the pins were brought, and, on view thereof, to judge of their quality and price, and to arbitrate and settle any differences arising; and in the event of their absence, or being unable to agree, the Lord Mayor should determine the matter. Since the parties for the most part were under the Lord Mayor's jurisdiction, they desired him and the Court of Aldermen to put these measures in execution with such care and diligence that they might report their proceedings and any hindrances they experienced in the matter, and by whose default they were occasioned, to the Council.
1st February, 1617.

IV. 104. Order of the King in Council, directing the Lord Treasurer to write to the Lord Mayor and the rest of the Aldermen for a speedy ending of the controversy between the Pinners and the Haberdashers according to the Orders of the Privy Council, and if they should be unable to do so, to certify the differences between them to the Lord Treasurer and the Attorney-General, who were to hear and determine such controversies according to Law and Equity.
Whitehall, 25th March, 1618.

IV. 105. Letter from the Lord Treasurer (the Earl of Suffolk) to the Lord Mayor, Sir Thomas Bennett, Knight and Alderman, Sir John Jolles, Knight and Alderman, and others, reciting that the Privy Council had referred to them the settlement of the differences between the Pinners and the Haberdashers, and that he had been specially directed by the King to require them speedily to determine the matter, and if unsuccessful to certify thereon to the Attorney-General and himself.
Suffolk House, 26th March, 1618.

IV. 107. Order of the Court of Aldermen upon receipt of the foregoing Letter, referring it to the Lord Mayor and sundry Aldermen named to meet at Guildhall on the 9th April ensuing, and to hear and finally determine the matter.
31st March, 1618.

IV. 108. An explanation of the state of the Pinners, and their humble Petition to the Lord Mayor and the rest of the Committee. It recites in detail the proceedings taken by the Privy Council, and their Order to the Haberdashers to take the pins weekly of the Pinners, and states that the Haberdashers had declined to perform the same; that thereupon the Pinners had agreed with one John Tallcott Citizen of London, to take their pins, who had given bond not to sell them at a higher rate than the Pinners sold them to the Haberdashers twenty years previously. Since the Pinners found the Committee had no authority to give them the benefit of the law, or restrain the sale of foreign pins, they had prayed the King that if the Committee could not determine the differences they should forthwith certify to that effect to the Lord Treasurer and the Attorney-General. They therefore prayed the Committee to certify and refer the same accordingly.
(Circa 1618–19.)

V. 23. Letter from the Company of Merchants Adventurers of England to the Lord Mayor and Court of Aldermen. They had been informed of a contract made by their deputy for the sale to the Court of two thousand pounds' worth of gunpowder, at elevenpence per pound, lately received from Hamburgh, with which contract the Company (though it was to their loss) were contented. Since there was cause for suspicion of something ill intended against the said gunpowder, they requested the Court forthwith to give order for the receipt and disposal of their portion thereof, the risk of which the Company conceived belonged to them.
29th April, 1619.

VI. 16. Letter from the Lord Mayor and Court of Aldermen to the Lords and others, Commissioners for Trade, expressing their approval of the orders made by the Commissioners for reforming abuses by factors, a kind of people aiming only at their own profit, and who had begotten all the complaints which had been made by clothiers, merchants, and drapers concerning trade. Until there were factors they were all quiet, and they did, even when taken at their best, rather harm than good. If left to themselves the inconveniences they occasioned would be insufferable. The Court particularly recommended to the notice of the Commissioners, Maximilian Dancy and Thomas Starkey, as men who for their several misdemeanours should be removed from their employments, and forbidden to act as factors.
27th June, 1623.

VI. 17. Letter from the Lord Mayor and Court of Aldermen to the Commissioners for Trade, enclosing Petitions presented to them by Citizens of London, using the trades of merchandizing, grocers, drugsters, confectioners, and distillers, which they conceived came within the compass of the Commissioners' powers, and expressing their anticipation that by their mediation such clauses in the King's grant to the Apothecaries as might receive a doubtful interpretation might be explained, and each Company content themselves with what was proper for them, without encroaching upon the others' rights.
June, 1623.

VI. 88. Letter from the Lords of the Council to the Lord Mayor, on behalf of Philip Grewen, a Merchant Stranger, who was desirous of disposing of a parcel of wine by retail, but was willing it should be sold by a Freeman, and requesting that steps might be taken to comply with his application, which was not intended to be used as a precedent.
Whitehall, 27th June, 1626.

VI. 160. Order of the Privy Council, reciting that they were informed, by the officers and farmers of the Customs, that divers merchants of the Company trading into the Levant and Turkey had offered to give bills for the payment of the 4s. 10d. per cwt. due upon currants, but refused to pay the 2s 2d. also due thereon, whilst others obstinately refused to pay any duty at all; and that the porters and carmen frequenting the waterside occasioned tumults and disorders, to the disturbance of the officers, by attempting and helping to carry away uncustomed goods; and directing the said officers to receive ready money or bills from the merchants for the 4s. 10d. per cwt., payable at reasonable and convenient times: and as to those who refused to pay the 2s. 2d., to detain three times the value in currants, and deliver the residue to the owners. As to those who refused to pay any duty, the whole of their currants imported should be retained till payment was made. The officers should also warn all carmen and porters, on pain of the King's high displeasure, to forbear to attempt the landing, &c., of any merchandize until discharged by warrant from the Custom House.
Whitehall, 9th January, 1628.

VI. 169. Order of the Privy Council, reciting that the Board had been informed that a Merchant Stranger, dwelling in London, had received a quantity of French wine, some of which had already been ordered by the Lord Mayor to be destroyed as corrupt, and some had been in other parts refused, as unwholesome and hurtful. It had therefore been thought fit that the whole of it should be tasted and tried, to prevent the danger which might arise to the King's subjects by reason of the sophisticating and falsifying used by unwholesome roots and other mixtures, of which Parliament had taken notice. The Council, having heard the Merchant, desired the Lord Mayor and Court of Aldermen to proceed according to the constitutions of the City for reformation of the abuse, and to ascertain where such wines had been sold.
Whitehall, 11th March, 1628.

VI. 174. Petition of Thomas Crosse, Goldsmith, on behalf of himself and the whole body of Goldsmiths within the realm, to the Lords of the Council, reciting abuses practised in purloining and pawning plate, jewels, chains, &c., and praying that a Royal Proclamation should be issued, prohibiting, under penalty, persons from selling or wearing counterfeit pearl, or stones, or coarse gold, or transporting silver in bullion, jewels, &c., beyond seas, contrary to law, and prohibiting all persons, other than goldsmiths, or officers of the Mint, or persons licensed by the Mint, from wilfully defacing, melting, or burning any gold or silver, or stuff of gold or silver, or altering the property of any jewels, or from covertly buying or selling, changing or pawning such articles, except with free Goldsmiths, at their stalls or shops, being the market overt for such commodities, according to the Charter of the City of London, and the Goldsmiths' Charter of the said City, confirmed by Act of Parliament of the I Edward III. The Proclamation should contain other provisions for regulating the trade of Goldsmiths throughout the realm, for the apprehension of suspected persons, and for preventing brokers or others from dealing in such commodities.
(Circa 1628–9.)

VII. 71. Certificate from Aldermen Hamersley, Fenn, (fn. 8) and Smith, (fn. 9) to the Court of Aldermen, of their proceedings, under the Order of the Star Chamber, as to the quantity of steel to be extracted from Swedish iron, and requesting twenty-eight days further time to complete their inquiry.
10th October, 1631.

VII. 92. Order in Council with respect to certain pipes of falsified French wines brought into the port of London by Paul Barnabie, directing the Lord Mayor to cause five or six vintners to rack and draw off into another vessel one of the said pipes, and to certify what drugs or ingredients they found in the said wine or cask, to sophisticate the same, from what places the wines came, and where they were usually vented.
23rd August, 1633.

VII. 93. Order in Council upon the Lord Mayor's Certificate thereon, directing him to cause the said French wines to be let out and cast away, or further proceeded against, as in like cases had been accustomed.
Whitehall, 4th October, 1633.

VII. 146. Order in Council, reciting that the Petitions of French Merchants, and of Peter Van Payne, Merchant Stranger, concerning eighteen pipes of white French wine, in the custody of the Lord Mayor, which wines had had a trial at law, had been read at the Board, and directing that the wines should be forthwith racked in the presence of Van Payne, and Certificate made by the Lord Mayor of what was found in them; in the mean time they should remain in safe custody and cool cellarage.
Whitehall, 3rd July, 1635.

VII. 148. Certificate from the Lord Mayor to the Lords of the Council, that the wines of Peter Van Payne had been racked in his presence. In eight of the pipes had been found bundles of weeds, in four others some quantities of sulphur, in another a piece of match, and in all of them a kind of gravel mixture sticking to the casks; that they were conceived to be very unwholesome, and of a similar nature to others formerly condemned and destroyed.
Dated in margin, 10th July, 1635.

VIII. 12. Order from the Lords of the Treasury that a quantity of logwood, the property of Hugh Jones, a merchant of London, which he had caused to be sent to London, in ignorance of the restraint laid upon that commodity, and which had been seized, might be delivered up to him upon his giving good security to export the same to foreign parts, not to be brought back again.
30th August, 1619.

VIII. 109. Same as No. 92, Vol. VII.
23rd August, 1633.

VIII. 161. Order in Council concerning certain sophisticated and falsified French wines imported by one Peter Van Peyne, a merchant stranger, directing the Lord Mayor and Court of Aldermen to cause the said wines to be put into safe custody, and trial to be made and proceedings to be had concerning the same, according to the usual course and custom of the City.
3rd June, 1635.

VIII. 188. Order in Council—upon the petition of John Sperwent, merchant, and Garrett Day, prisoners in the Fleet, desiring that their petition touching their wines might be referred to some Aldermen and others of the City—directing that the Petitioners should perform the former order of the Board thereon within ten days, and, in default, authorizing the Lord Mayor to beat off the heads of the casks and let the wine out. Upon the Petitioners paying the costs the merchants had been put to in the matter, the Board would give directions for their release.
22nd March, 1636.

VIII. 189. Order in Council concerning twenty-six pipes of wine found to be sophisticated, directing the Recorder to take good security from the owners or consignees thereof, forthwith to transport the said wine beyond seas, and not re-import the same; and to give satisfaction to the merchants for their charges in prosecuting the suit. In case of default, the Board would give such further directions therein as should be thought fit.
6th April, 1636.

IX. 5. Letter from the Lords of the Council to the Lord Mayor and Aldermen. His Majesty, to encourage and maintain trade and commerce with foreign parts, had determined to appoint, under the Great Seal, a Committee of able persons, to take all matters into their consideration, for which purpose they desired that the Court of Aldermen should give notice to the following Companies—the Turkey Merchant Adventurers, the East India, Greenland, Eastland, and the Incorporated Traders for Spain, France, Portugal, Italy, and the West India Plantations—to present the names of four of the most active members of their body, out of whom His Majesty would select two, and would join to them merchants, experienced persons, and some of the Members of the Privy Council, under whose advice might be inserted in the several treaties such articles and clauses as should render the nation more prosperous and flourishing in trade and commerce.
17th August, 1660.

Footnotes

1 Extract from Royal Proclamation, issued February 12th, 1579:—Item, Her Maiestie ordereth and also commandeth, that no person shall were any Sworde, Rapier, or such like weapon, that shall passe the length of one yarde and halfe a quarter of the blade, at the uttermost: nor any Dagger above the length of xii ynches in blade at the most: nor any Buckler with any point or pike above two ynches in length. And if any cutler, or other artificer, shall sell, make, or keepe in his house any Sworde, Rapier, Dagger, Buckler, or such like, contrary thereunto, the same to be imprisoned and to make fine at the Queenes Maiesties pleasure, and the weapon to be for forfayted. And if any such person shall offende a second time, then the same to be banished from the place and Towne of his dwelling."
2 An Act against Regrators of Tanned Leathers, 5 & 6 Edward VI., cap. 15, sec. 5 & 6, (1551–2).
3 An Act for the avoiding of divers foreign wares made by handicraftsmen beyond the seas, 5 Elizabeth, cap. 7 (1562–3).
4 This building was erected by Robert Earl of Salisbury, somewhat after the shape of the Royal Exchange, having cellars underneath and paved walks above with rows of shops. The first stone was laid on the 10th of June, 1608. It was opened by King James I., April 10th, 1609, who came attended by the Queen, the Duke of York, the Lady Elizabeth, and many great lords and ladies, but it was not successful. 'Stow,' by Munday, p. 338. An elevation of this building is given in Nichols's 'Progresses,' vol. i. p. 114.
5 Son of James Pemberton, of Eccleston, Lancashire, Goldsmith; elected Alderman of Bishopsgate, June 15th, 1602; chosen Sheriff, June 24th, 1602; removed to Castle Baynard, December 15th, 1603; Knighted, July 26th, 1603; elected Lord Mayor, September 29th, 1611. Cockayne removed to Castle Baynard, loco Pemberton, deceased, October 7th, 1613. His pageant, written by Anthony Munday, and performed at the cost and charges of the Goldsmiths' Company, is entitled 'Chryso-thriambos; the Triumphes of Golde.' He died September 8th, 1613, and was buried at St. John Zachary's. He founded a free school in his native place (Eccleston), gave 500l. to Christ's Hospital, 200l. to the Goldsmiths' Company, &c. See 'Stow,' edit. 1720, Book 3, p. 97.
6 19 Henry VII., cap. 21.
7 Richard Pyott, or Pyatt, Grocer; elected Alderman of Bridge Without, May 3rd, 1610; chosen Sheriff the same year. Richard Dean, elected, loco Pyatt, February 17th, 1619.
8 Sir Richard Fenn, Haberdasher; son of Hugh Fenn, of Wotton-under-Edge, Gloucestershire; elected Alderman of Castle Baynard, in the room of Francis Pember, who surrendered his office on payment of a fine, April, 1626; Sheriff, 24th June, 1626; removed from Castle Baynard to Tower Ward, May 8th, 1634; chosen Mayor, 1637. John Highlord, elected Alderman of Tower Ward, loco Fenn, deceased, October 1st, 1639. By his will, dated 10th April, 1635, he bequeathed land and premises at West Ham, Essex, for the relief of the poor of that parish.
9 Humphrey Smith, Grocer, elected Alderman of Farringdon Within, February 3rd, 1628; chosen Sheriff, 1629; removed to Cheap Ward, February 25th, 1633. Gilbert Harrison elected Alderman of Cheap Ward, loco Smith, September 6th, 1638.


<--Previous:
Thames
Next:-->
Trained bands