Merchant Adventurers

(still work in progress)

On the front of Bishop Lloyd's House in Watergate Street Chester can be seen a coat of arms relating to the Merchant Adventurers of Chester. This is their story and explores their connection with the "East India Company", an organisation which helped to paint large parts of the map of the world red. They were active in a period around the Tudor/Stuart transition when a major economic shift began to take place from the control of trade being in the hands of local individuals to the establishment of "multi-national" companies. The article also examines why this coat of arms is located on the front of the building.

Bishop Lloyd's House is named after Bishop George Lloyd (1560– 1 August 1615). He was born at Llanelian-yn-Rhos, near the present day Colwyn Bay. His association with Chester probably began when, between June 1575 and September 1579, he was a King’s Scholar at Chester Cathedral. It has been suggested that his brother, the increasingly influential David Lloyd, could have organised this education as he was living in Chester at the time. George attended Jesus College, Cambridge from 1579 to 1582, gaining his degree, and his MA in 1586. In 1596 he gained his DD. He was thirty-six years old and became Divinity Lecturer at Chester Cathedral. He was appointed Rector of Heswall in 1597 and appears to have lived there.

George Lloyd was consecrated as Bishop of Sodor and Man in late 1599 (Calendar of State Papers Domestic: Elizabeth, 1598-1601 p. 360) being presented 18 December by William Stanley, 6th earl of Derby. Royal assent by Queen Elizabeth is said to have been signified to the archbishop of York (Matthew Hutton) on 23rd December 1600.

William Stanley (see Shakespeare and Chester) was educated at St John's College, Oxford. In 1582 he travelled to the continent to study in university towns in France and may also have attended Henry of Navarre's academy at Château de Nérac. In 1585 he returned home but was once more sent to Paris as part of an embassy to Henry III of France. He then remained on the continent for a further three years of personal travels before returning home once more. After the death of his father in 1593, William as the second son was bequeathed a number of Manors and Lordships while his elder brother Ferdinando Stanley, 5th Earl of Derby, inherited the Earldom and its estates. From his marriage to Alice Spencer, Ferdinando had his eldest daughter, Anne Stanley, Countess of Castlehaven, in 1580. Henry VIII's will would have made her queen in 1603 as heiress of Henry's younger sister Mary Tudor; Elizabeth was actually succeeded by James VI of Scotland, the heir of Henry's older sister, Margaret Tudor. Ferdinando died (probably murdered) in April 1594, leaving three daughters but no sons.

Like most of his predecessors, Lloyd rarely visited the Isle of Man and there is only one recorded visit in 1603 where he attended a Consistory Court where several offenders against the spiritual law were punished. In 1605 he exchanged the seat of Sodor and Man for that of Chester. Between these dates only, he was entitled to use the arms which appear on Bishop Lloyds house. During his tenure as Bishop of Chester, he reversed the anti-Puritan policies of his predecessor Richard Vaughan, who had by then become Bishop of London. Lloyd died 1st August 1615.

The fact that the plaque bears the arms of the Bishop of Sodor and Man allows it to be dated to the period 1600-1605. Were it later he would have displayed the arms of the Bishopric of Chester, which was a more important post. There is a second plaque on the front of Bishop Lloyds House which is concerned with James I, who cme to the English throne in March 1603. If the two plaques are contempary of each other then they must have been installed Mid 1603 to 1605 in the very first years of James' rule in England. But why are the subjects of the heraldy such that it is?

This article looks at the succession issues for James I and why he wanted to trace a bloodline back to Henry Tudor. It also explores how Henry IV had a weak claim when he captured Richard II. There is a discussion of the development of the trade between Chester and Spain and how this relied on a political background of the succession from Henry Tudor to James, and at some of the local families that were involved in these changes.

The Ruin of the River
The idea that the Port of Chester sufferred a decline due to silting is a common one in the histories of Chester and was established as a pattern for the course of history at an early date. Hemingway (Vol II, page 301) records the following as regards the port of Chester:


 * That the Dee was navigable for vessels of great burden from the sea up to Chester in very ancient times is beyond all doubt and it is equally certain that early in the 14th century the navigation had been materially impeded by the shifting of the sands. The first notice we have of the latter circumstance is contained in letters patent of Richard II who releaseth to the citizens £73 10s 8d parcel of the £100 for the fee farm reserved by the charter of Edward I which the city was in arrears in which also is assigned as the reason of this indulgence the ruinous estate of the city and of the haven. Henry VI in confirming all the former charters of the city recites what great concourse in times past as well by strangers as others has been made with merchandise into this city by reason of the goodness of the port thereof and also what great trading for victuals into and out of Wales to the great profit of the city and then shows how the same port of Chester was lamentably decayed by reason of the abundance of sands which had choaked the creek and for these considerations released to the city £10 of the fee farm reserved by Edward I.

Frequently cited historical records show that the people of Chester had long been compaining about the state of the River Dee. Charters which authorised reduction in taxes in response to this must have relied of the information provided in petitions from the city. The first charter, after a preamble which recalls that in 1300, when the fee-farm was first granted, "there was a good harbour to the said city", proceeds to elaborate on the difficulties experienced in 1445:


 * "And now it is so, and for forty years now last past it has been, that the great flow of water at the said port by which our said merchants had a course and return with their ships and merchandise to our said city is taken away from the harbour by the wreck of sea-sand so that the said harbour is wholly destroyed and cannot be recovered: so that no merchant ship can approach within twelve miles and more of the said city, and thus no merchant ship belongs nor has belonged to our said city, but they in default of the aforesaid harbour are wholly destroyed and wasted, to the great detriment, desolation and impoverishment of our said city and citizens."

The charter of 1486 implies an even greater disaster:


 * "And afterwards the channel of the same port became and is at present obstructed as much by the vehement influx of sand and silting up of gravel that merchants with their ships were by no means able to reach the aforesaid city for the space of twelve miles for two hundred years now last passed, but betake themselves to other ports and places in the same country where they may more easily unload their merchandise and re-load. And the walls of the same city have fallen in decay and ruin. Besides, the aforesaid city, which of old had been wont to be inhabited fully by merchants and others rich artificers, is so thorougly ruined and prostrated to the ground that nearly one fourth part of the same city at present is destroyed and desolate."

Of course these charters need to be read with caution as the citizens are medieval petitioners and exaggeration was customary. There is every reason to think that, despite silting, the small craft which plied the Dee in the later Middle Ages could have reached the Portpool and perhaps the Watergate. The charters also need to be seen in the light of the economic conditions of the time, which could well have given rise to pleading of a special case. The period 1399-1485 saw the Wars of the Roses, but that consisted of intermittent campaigns and does not appear to have caused large-scale devastation, although as an internal war it could not produce growth through conquest or plunder. Compared with the economic boom that occurred in 12th century England, the economic situation was in general very bleak in the mid-fifteenth century. Historians now refer to the mid-fifteenth century as "The Great Slump" but the thirty years preceding the accession of Henry VII in 1485 were not years of continuous and all-consuming destructive anarchy. It was more a series of plots, murders, uprisings, rebellions, invasions and battles, most intense in 1459-64, 1469-71 and 1483-7. Chester was not so dependent on the wool trade as elsewhere, but English woollen cloth exports had collapsed by a third between 1440 and 1450. Henry VI’s Government did not help when it got itself into a trade war with Burgundy: this had led to Burgundy banning the import of English woollen cloth. There was also a shortage of coin, possibly caused by a continent-wide scarcity of silver that became most severe in the 1400s. The shortage was caused by trade deficits with the East and declining production of precious metals. Whereas in the 1350s, it has been estimated that there were 56 pennies in circulation per capita, by the 1420s, there was just 13 pennies available per head of the English population.

In 1445 Chester, as far as wine imports were concerned, was in the middle of its least prosperous decade since the beginning of the fifteenth century. Estimated decennial totals were in the region of 1,000 tuns in 1400-10. They climbed to over 2,000 tuns in 1410-20, fell back to just over 1,000 tuns in 1420-30 and 1430-40, but in the decade 1440-50 dropped to 800 tuns. In the 1480s the wine trade at Chester was still depressed and, even more telling, between 1460 and 1490 the bulk of wine imports into Chester were freighted by non-freemen. The Irish and coastal trade, which ranked as the port's major commercial activity, does not appear to have suffered to the same degree as the overseas trade. Irish and coastal shipping arriving in the port in the fifteenth century did not show any appreciable decline until after 1460, and from the mid-1470s arrivals reached their pre-1460 levels. These are only the official figures and do not account for any customs avoidance.

A Stanley Succession


The Earls of Derby were among the most influential and prominent noble families in England, and especially in the North. While the ones mentioned in this article did not live in Stanley Palace the building is still worth a visit. Ferdinando Stanley was a great-grandson of Mary Tudor, the younger sister of King Henry VIII. As explained below this made him an heir to the throne. Ferdinando was the brother to the William Stanley who presented George Lloyd as the Bishop of Sodor and Man. For many years it was thought that the arms of the Stanley's also featured on Bishop Lloyds house, being placed together with the Bishop's arms in one of the panels. Recent (2023) drone investigation has shown that the blazon displayed is not that of the Stanley's but features three fleur-de-lys and not three stag's heads. This couls be an error (like the reversed "Legs of Man"), but the Stanley arms would be very well known in Chester. The Stanley's had been Kings of Mann since 1405 when Henry IV granted the suzerainty of the Isle of Man, to Sir John Stanley. In addition, but separate from the power of governance over the Island, John Stanley was also granted the patronage of the Diocese of Sodor and Man, which passed down to William Stanley the 6th Earl of Derby who presented Lloyd as Bishop. William Stanley would eventually retire to Chester (see: Shakespeare and Chester).



The Succession
Parliament's Third Succession Act granted Henry VIII the right to bequeath the crown in his Will. His Will specified that, in default of heirs to his children, the throne was to pass to the children of the daughters of his younger sister Mary Tudor, Queen of France. In doing so, he excluded the kings of Scotland, descendants of his elder sister Margaret Tudor, represented by the Catholic Mary, Queen of Scots. Edward VI confirmed this by letters patent in his "Devise for the succession" in which he undertook to change the succession, most probably inspired by his father Henry VIII's precedent. He passed over the claims of his half-sisters and, at last, settled the Crown on his first cousin once removed, the 16-year-old Lady Jane Grey. The letters patent were issued on 21 June and signed by 102 notables, among them the whole Privy Council, peers, bishops, judges, and London aldermen as well as by the Merchants of the staple (six), and Merchant Adventurers (six). The only surviving text of the Devise is that from the transcript of Ralph Starkey in the MS. Harl. 35, f. 364, which is preceded by this title:


 * "A true coppi of the counterfet wille supposed to be the laste wille and testament of kinge Edwarde the Sixt, forged and published under the Great Seale of Englande by the confederacie of the dukes of Suffolke and Northumberlande, on the behalfe of the Lady Jane, eldest daughter to the said duke of Suffolke, and testefied with the handes of 101 of the cheife of the nobilliti and princepall men of note of this kingdome; dated the 21 day of June an[n]o. 1553;"

and followed by this memorandum:


 * "This is a true coppie of Edward the Sixte his will, taken out of the original under the Greate Seale, which sir Robart Cotton delyvered to the kinges majestie the xijth of Apprill 1611, at Roystorne, to be canseled."

Both Mary and Elizabeth had been named illegitimate during the reign of Henry VIII after his marriages to Catherine of Aragon (Mary I's mother) and Anne Boleyn (Elizabeth I's mother) had been declared void. The second act of succession (1536) removed them from the line of inhritance. Unfortunately, Jane only ruled for nine days. On 19 July 1553, Jane was imprisoned in the Tower's Gentleman Gaoler's apartments, her husband in the Beauchamp Tower. Her chief supporter the The Duke of Northumberland was executed on 22 August 1553. In September, Parliament declared Mary the rightful successor and denounced and revoked Jane's proclamation as that of a usurper. In doing this they were following the Law as the "Devise for succession" could not overrule an act of parliament, and there had been no time to put such an Act through. Had Edward lived long enough to secure a parliamentary warrant for his letters patent and impose a corresponding Oath of Succession, or had Northumberland and the Council managed to gain custody of Mary and more effectively coordinated the military and public relations side of the coup, or had Mary shown less stamina, Jane might have held on to the throne. She and her allies would have probably sought parliamentary recognition of her title, just like her great-grandfather and founder of the Tudor dynasty Henry VII had done half a century earlier,

On 12 February 1554 Jane Grey was executed. During the Marian persecutions and its aftermath, Jane became viewed as a Protestant martyr, featuring prominently in the several editions of Foxe's Book of Martyrs (1563 - more properly "Actes and Monuments of these Latter and Perillous Dayes").



Jane Gray's Sisters
Elizabeth succeeded Mary upon the death of the latter in November 1558. Jane Grey had been married to Lord Guildford Dudley (c. 1535 – 12 February 1554) and had no children. Lady Katherine Grey (25 August 1540 – 26 January 1568) was a younger sister of Lady Jane Grey. A granddaughter of Henry VIII's sister Mary, she emerged as a prospective successor to her cousin, Elizabeth I of England, before incurring Queen Elizabeth's wrath by, in December 1560, secretly marrying Edward Seymour, 1st Earl of Hertford. Arrested after the Queen was informed of their clandestine marriage, Katherine (as Lady Hertford) lived in captivity until her death, having borne two sons in the Tower of London. In 1562, the marriage was annulled and the Seymours were censured as fornicators for "carnal copulation" by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Matthew Parker. This rendered their children illegitimate and thereby ineligible as successors to the throne. The children included Edward Seymour (21 September 1561 – July 1612), Lord Beauchamp.

A further sister of Jane Grey, Lady Mary Grey, also married without the Queen's permission. On 16 July 1565, while the Queen was absent attending the marriage of her kinsman, Sir Henry Knollys (d. 21 December 1582), and Margaret Cave, the daughter of Sir Ambrose Cave, Mary secretly married the Queen's sergeant porter, Thomas Keyes. Upon hearing that the wedding had taken place, the Queen is said to have declared wrathfully that "I'll have no little bastard Keyes laying claim to my throne". Keyes was committed to solitary confinement in the Fleet prison, while Lady Mary was placed under strict house arrest. The two would have no children.

The sanctions taken were intended to cut out any possible bloodline through the Greys. The only valid succession was apparently through the sister of the mother of the Gray sisters, Eleanor Clifford, Countess of Cumberland. This led to the Stanley's.

The Stanley Claim
Elizabeth's heir was now Margaret Stanley (née Lady Margaret Clifford; 1540 – 28 September 1596). She was the only surviving daughter of Henry Clifford, 2nd Earl of Cumberland and Lady Eleanor Brandon. Her maternal grandparents were Charles Brandon, 1st Duke of Suffolk and Mary Tudor, Queen of France. Mary was the third daughter of King Henry VII of England and Elizabeth of York. In 1579, Margaret was arrested after she had been heard discussing a proposed marriage of Queen Elizabeth to the Duke d'Alençon. She was opposed to it as it threatened her own possible accession to the crown. She was then accused of using sorcery to predict when Elizabeth would die, and even of planning to poison Elizabeth. Simply predicting the death of a monarch was a capital offence at the time. The countess was put under house arrest. She would die in 1596. However she had married Henry Stanley, 4th Earl of Derby on 7 February 1555 in the Chapel Royal at Whitehall Palace, with whom she had four children: Edward Stanley (who died young); Ferdinando Stanley, 5th Earl of Derby; William Stanley, 6th Earl of Derby (c. 1561 – 29 September 1642) and Francis Stanley (b. 1562, died young).

Elizabeth I balked at establishing the order of succession in any form, presumably because she feared for her own life once a successor was named. By 1580, it was obvious that Queen Elizabeth I would have no children, and this focused attention on Ferdinando Stanley as a possible future king. After the likely murder of Ferdinando (16 April 1594), the legitimate and legal heir of Elizabeth I, following the will of Henry VIII was therefore his eldest daughter Anne Stanley, Countess of Castlehaven. Descent from the two daughters of Henry VII who reached adulthood, Margaret and Mary, was the first and main issue in the succession.

In 1598, a succession dispute between the daughters of Ferdinando and their uncle, William, Earl of Derby, was heard by the Privy Council. They eventually (in 1607) decided that the right to the Isle of Man had belonged solely to Queen Elizabeth I, and the letters patent of 1405 which conferred the lordship of the Isle of Man on the Stanley family were declared null and void as the previous ruler, Henry, Earl of Northumberland, had not been subject to legal attainder, despite his treason, and the 1405 and 1406 letters patent had therefore not taken effect.

Bishop Lloyd and Royal Genealogy
The future James I was the only son of Mary, Queen of Scots, and her second husband, Henry Stuart, Lord Darnley. Both Mary and Darnley were great-grandchildren of Henry VII of England through Margaret Tudor, the older sister of Henry VIII. From 1601, in the last years of Elizabeth's life, certain English politicians — notably her chief minister Robert Cecil — maintained a secret correspondence with James to prepare in advance for a smooth succession. With the queen clearly dying, Cecil sent James a draft proclamation of his accession to the English throne in March 1603. Elizabeth died in the early hours of 24 March, and James was proclaimed king in London later the same day. While the accession of James went smoothly, the succession had been the subject of much debate for decades, especially given that it was in direct contravention to the Will of Henry VIII.

In June 1604 Lloyd was in London and working on an assignment to revise any crude mistakes in the catalogue of British chronology in which the Royal family’s genealogy has been inserted. The Stuarts wanted a clear lineage to be shown reaching back to Henry VII, as well as Edmund Tudor and his wife Margaret Beaufort. It is through Margaret that the disputed claim to the throne passed to her son Henry Tudor later Henry VII, Elizabeth and Mary Queen of Scot's common ancestor. There were apparently no other claimants who were not descended from Henry VII.



The Sons of Edward III
The Lancaster and York branches started from the third and fourth son of Edward III. These were: Duke of Lancaster John of Gaunt and Duke of York Edmund of Langley. The family tree is based on the order of Edward III’s children, the Lancaster branch would therefore be considered senior to the York branch. Richard II, came to the throne because he was the son of Edward III’s eldest son (his father, Edward the Black Prince died before Edward III did, so through primogeniture down the Plantagenet line Richard II became heir). Henry of Bolingbroke, son of John of Gaunt (Lancaster), usurped Richard II. Bollingbroke became Henry IV but had a very shaky clain to the throne: he claimed the throne as the right heir to King Henry III by asserting that:


 * Edmund Crouchback was the elder and not the younger son of King Henry III, i.e. that he was born before Edward I, but passed over due to a deformity;
 * every monarch from Edward I onwards was a usurper, and;
 * his mother Blanche of Lancaster was a great-granddaughter of Edmund Crouchback.

There is noting to suggest that Edmund Crouchback was actually deformed, or that he was the eldest son of Henry III. Edmund accompanied his elder brother Edward on his crusade in the Holy Land, where his epithet, "Crouchback," originated from a corruption of "cross back2, referring to him wearing a stitched cross on his garments. There is also nothing to back-up the argument that every monarch from Edward I onwards was a usurper, as these include Edward II and III as well as Richard II who died without issue.

Unfortunately Edward III had a further son and his descendant was the heir of the royal estate according to common law. He was Edmund Mortimer, 5th Earl of March, who descended from the daughter of Edward III’s third son (second to survive to adulthood), Lionel of Antwerp. Bolingbroke has to surpress a many plots and revolts through his reign. However, by the reign of Richard III the Wars of the Roses had disposed of most claimants for descent from Edward III.

Richard III
Some might suggest that Richard himself was responible for much of this "thinning out" and he has been accused of involvement in the deaths oF:


 * Edward Prince of Wales: at the battlefield of Tewkesbury on May 4th 1471. The first reference to Richard’s involvement is found in the Tudor history, Anglica Historia (1534) by Polydore Vergil, which states that Edward was “crewelly murderyd” by the Duke of Clarence, Lord Hastings and the Duke of Gloucester.


 * King Henry VI: only child of Henry V, he succeeded to the English throne at the age of nine months upon his father's death, and succeeded to the French throne on the death of his maternal grandfather, Charles VI, shortly afterwards. Having "lost his wits, his two kingdoms and his only son", Henry died in the Tower during the night of 21 May 1471, possibly killed on the orders of King Edward IV. Richard was his jailor.


 * George, Duke of Clarence: the brother of English kings Edward IV and Richard III. Though a member of the House of York, he switched sides to support the Lancastrians, before reverting to the Yorkists. He was later convicted of treason against his elder brother, Edward IV, and was executed.


 * Anne Neville: was Queen of England as the wife of King Richard III. Upon her death rumours circulated that Richard III had poisoned her in order to marry his niece Elizabeth of York. Documents later found in the Portuguese royal archives show that after Anne's death, Richard's ambassadors were sent on a formal errand to negotiate a double marriage between Richard and the Portuguese king's sister Joanna (who was of Lancastrian descent), and Elizabeth of York and Joanna's cousin Duke Manuel


 * Edward V: was de jure King of England from 9 April to 25 June 1483. He succeeded his father, Edward IV, upon the latter's death. Edward V was never crowned, and his brief reign was dominated by the influence of his uncle and Lord Protector, the Duke of Gloucester, who deposed him to reign as King Richard III; this was confirmed by the Act entitled Titulus Regius, which denounced any further claims through his father's heirs.


 * Richard of Shrewsbury: was the sixth child and second son of King Edward IV of England and Elizabeth Woodville, born in Shrewsbury. Richard and his older brother, who briefly reigned as King Edward V of England, mysteriously disappeared shortly after Richard III became king in 1483.

Henry Tudor's Claim
Henry Tudor's fortunes turned dramatically, in 1483 when Edward IV, a ruthless warrior and well-respected king, died aged just 40. Though he had young sons, his brother Richard seized the throne. With this uncertainty, and bad blood over Richard’s perceived murder of his nephews, the young pretender across the channel knew that this would be his best opportunity to win what he saw as his birthright.

His claim was weak. Henry Tudor could claim that Bolingbroke was an ancestor. He was the only child of Edmund Tudor and Margaret Beaufort. Edmund Tudor was the half brother of the then king of England, Henry VI. His mother was Catherine Valois, the widow of Henry V. Edmund however considered he was the last surviving member of the House of Lancaster. However the crown could not have passed through Catherine. Margaret Beaufort's importance to Henry Tudor's clain is arguable since her descent was through John of Gaunt's illegitimate son John Beaufort (c. 1373 – 16 March 1410), born of the Duke's affair with his long term mistress Katherine Swynford (c. 1349 – 10 May 1403), whom he later married. This established the House of Beaufort. The Beauforts were the chief supporters of Henry VI and the House of Lancaster.

It was accepted that the Beauforts were later (1397) legitimized by King Richard II, with an Act of Parliament of 9th Feb 2397 but a clause had been inserted into the document debarring the Beauforts from the throne. They had also legitimsed by Pope Boniface IX in 1396 following the wedding of Gaunt and his former mistress. John Beaufort and his wife Margaret Holland, the daughter of Thomas Holland, 2nd Earl of Kent and Alice FitzAlan, had six children including John Beaufort, 1st Duke of Somerset who was the father of Margaret Beaufort. Margaret became the head of the Beaufort house after her uncles and brothers passed away without any legitimate heirs.

When the Yorkist Edward IV regained the throne in 1471, Henry Tudor fled with other Lancastrians to Brittany. He spent most of the next 14 years under the protection of Francis II, Duke of Brittany. By 1483, Henry's mother was actively promoting him as an alternative to Richard III, despite her being married to Thomas Stanley, a Yorkist. At Rennes Cathedral on Christmas Day 1483, Henry pledged to marry Elizabeth of York, the eldest daughter of Edward IV. She was Edward's heir since the presumed death of her brothers, the Princes in the Tower, King Edward V and Richard of Shrewsbury, Duke of York. A first attempt by Henry Tudor attempt to return to England in force failed. Richard III attempted to extradite Henry from Brittany, but Henry escaped to France. He was welcomed by the French, who readily supplied him with troops and equipment for a second, successful, invasion. Richard III's death at the Battle of Bosworth Field (1485) effectively ended the Wars of the Roses. Henry then married Elizabeth of York: they were third cousins, as both were great-great-grandchildren of John of Gaunt.

This work on the part of Lloyd was intended to give genealogical legitimacy to the rule of James I by demonstrating a valid line of succession from at least Henry VII. That Lloyd acquired this post probably shows that he was already known to be interested and knowledgeable in the subject of royal genealogy. He was still at this time Bishop of Sodor and Man, but by July 1604 he is suggesting that he may become Bishop of Chester, a post still held by Richard Vaughan.



The alternatives who could be considered were:

Henry VII > Margaret Tudor > James V > Mary Queen of Scots > James I

Henry VII > Margaret Tudor > Margaret Douglas > Henry Stuart > James I (age 42, has 3 sons)

Henry VII > Mary Tudor > Francis Grey > Katherine Grey > Edward Seymour (age 47, has 3 sons)

Henry VII > Mary Tudor > Eleanor Brandon > Margaret Stanley > Ferdinando Stanley > Anne Stanley (age 23, unmarried)

Henry VII > Margaret Tudor > Margaret Douglas > Charles Stuart > Arbella Stuart (age 28, unmarried)

James I was the closer living relative to Elizabeth by one step than Anne Stanley and the children of Katherine Grey had been declared illegitimate. He is the same distance away from the throne as Arbella Stuart.

Hitherto the royal authority had been content to rest itself upon human law and precedent; it remained for the Stuarts to find for it a sanction in a Divine law higher than human law and precedent, the recognition of which would set the king himself above all human law and precedent. Perhaps this was invevitable given that they had a weak claim to the throne by blood, and (unlike Henry Tudor) no claim by conquest. The assumption was harmless, so long as the king in practice consented to be bound by law and precedent; the trouble arose when kings refused to be so bound. The theory of Divine Right was for the first time asserted by James, but he did not carry his insistence upon it to the extreme point in practice. Hence the great collision between Crown and parliament was deferred to the reign of his successor. Nevertheless, it was James who set the ball rolling.

The next thing this article explores is ways in which the succcession issues related to trade in Chester. Wars and treaties would have considerable effects on trade.

The Treaty of Medina del Campo (1489)
Henry Tudor became Henry VII when he defeated Richard III on 22 August 1485 at the Battle of Boswoth Field at which Thomas and William Stanley were famously present and eventually supported Henry. He was the last king of England to win his throne on the field of battle. To secure his hold on the throne, Henry declared himself king by right of conquest retroactively from 21 August 1485, the day before Bosworth Field. Thus, anyone who had fought for Richard against him would be guilty of treason and Henry could legally confiscate the lands and property of Richard III, while restoring his own. He cemented his claim by marrying Elizabeth of York, daughter of Edward IV. However he appears to have been concerned about the strength of his claim. Henry's mother, Margaret Beaufort, was a descendant of the Lancastrian branch of the House of Plantagenet. Henry's father, Edmund Tudor, 1st Earl of Richmond, a half-brother of Henry VI of England and a member of the Welsh Tudors of Penmynydd. Henry VII and Elizabeth had seven children of which those who survived infancy were: Prince Arthur, Margaret, Henry and Mary. Each of these had the benefit of the bloodlines of both parents.

The Treaty of Medina del Campo was an agreement developed on March 26, 1489 between England and the nascent Spain. Its provisions accomplished three goals: the establishment of a common policy for the two countries regarding France, the reduction of tariffs between the two countries, and, most centrally, the arrangement of a marriage contract between Arthur Tudor, eldest son of Henry VII of England (and Earl of Chester), and Catherine of Aragon, daughter of Isabella I of Castile and Ferdinand II of Aragon.

Arthur Tudor


Arthur Tudor was born 19/20 September 1486 eight months after his parents Henry VII and Elizabeth of York had married on the 18th January of the same year. Biographies of Elizabeth of York, Henry VII and Arthur himself do not report any contemporary rumor that Arthur was illegitimate (either because his parents may not have been married when he was conceived, or because Henry VII might not have been his father). Henry picked the name Arthur for the usual reasons given, to inaugurate a new age, emphasize his supposed descent from the legendary kings of Britain, provide a unifying motif across York-Lancaster divisions and perhaps to avoid the acrimony that might have arisen from a straight Henry-or-Edward choice.

Arthur Tudor was created Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester in 1489. Having an Earl and the potential of a stable government was probably considered a good thing by the people of Chester as the previous Earls of Chester had at times been sporadic especially during the "Wars of the Roses": Edward of Middleham the son of Richard III had died in 1482; Edward of York, was one of the "princes in the tower"; and, Edward of Westminster was killed aged seventeen at the Battle of Tewkesbury (1471). Effectively, the last earls to have taken any peacetime interest in Chester had been Henry of Monmouth (later Henry V) and Richard of Bordeaux (later Richard II). Notably, there was effectively only an adult Earl of Chester for few of the years from Henry of Monmouth becoming Henry V in 1413 at age 25 until the Georgians.

The connection with Spain via the betrothal was also useful for the merchants of Chester which Arthur Tudor visited in 1498. The Midsummer Watch Parade was first held during the mayoralty of Richard Goodman (in 1498) - organised by the City Guilds. As later recorded by William Aldersey:


 * "In this yeare it appeareth the watche vpon mydsomer dawn begane, also the north syde of the pentize buylded, prince Arthure came to Chester aboute the fourth of august, the assumption of our ladie played before the prince at the Abbaye gate, the xxvth august the prince made mr. goodman esquier [...] the xix daye of September he departed from chester."

There is an obvious difficulty in reconciling the dates of the visit of Prince Arthur to Chester (4 August 1498 - 19 Sept 1498) with the midsummer festivities during Goodman's mayorality, but it does indicate the nexus of significant events in which the origins of the watch parade is nested: the completion of a part of the Pentice, good progress on building the Abbey, an up-swing of trade with Spain, and of course the visit of the Prince. He was accompanied by his Page of Honour Thomas Cowper who married Isabel Goodman, daughter and heiress of mayor Richard Goodman. During the approximate time of the visit the Customs Records show that Mary of Chester, which was part owned by mayor Richard Goodman, arrived at Denhall (Neston) with 46 tons of iron. Goodman's profession is given as mercer, a merchant dealing in fabrics and textiles, especially silks and other fine cloths. Presumably he would send textiles or other goods out to Spain and bring back iron.

Armorial Bearings and Iconoclasts
It is not known for certain whether mayor Goodman was related to the Goodmans of Ruthin of whom Gabriel Goodman was awarded (by Elizabeth I) the arms displayed on Bishop Lloyd's House as a silver double headed eagle on a black field. The Goodmans of Chester used the "eagle" arms at times but also used a shield with a black chevron between three black crosses "botony" (with bud-like ends).

Between 1530 and 1686 the "Kings of Arms" belonging to the College of Arms were given Royal Commissions to visit English and Welsh counties, to establish that arms were borne with proper authority. They would travel around the country and imperiously summon the local gentry. The visitation of Cheshire for 1580 records pedigrees and coat of arms as examined in that year. This includes a very small pedigree for Goodman, and a description of the arms as: "Per pale Sable and Ermine an eagle displayed Or, charged on the breast with a trefoil Vert" i.e. a black and ermine shield bearing a golden eagle with a green three-part leaf on its breast. In the associated documents is found an explanation that:


 * "bereason Will'm Goodman beinge Maior died that yeare ; But he knowethe of no Armes due or belonginge to him nether desirethe nor deservethe any payns to be taken for him ; hee hathe yssue &c"

The normal consequence of not turning up at a visitation with proof of ancestry in the form of pedigrees and paying a not insubstantial fee would be that the arms would be "disclaimed", i.e. declared invalid, making the holder of them not a "gentleman" and hence by the "Law of Arms" and in the eyes of the Heralds no longer a member of the gentry which they saw as the lowest level of nobility. Those who did not pay would be "disclaymed in the chiefe places of the Hundreds wherein they dwell." In Chester there is evidence that this was done by public proclamation as there is a list of "names of the Particular Persons residing within the several Hundreds of the County Palatine of Chester who were disclaimed at the Market Cross in Chester on Thursday 28 July 1664 being the time of the Public & General Assizes held for the said County".



When the English Civil War began in 1642, the College of Arms was divided: three kings of arms, three heralds and one pursuivant sided with the King and the Royalists, while the other officers began to court the services of the Parliamentarian side. Nevertheless, the heralds petitioned Parliament in the same year, to protect their: "Books of Record, Registers, Entries, Precedents, Arms, Pedigrees and Dignities." In 1643 the heralds joined the King at Oxford, and were with him at Naseby and followed him on all of his campaigns. On 3 August 1646 the Committee of Sequestration took possession of the College premises, and kept it under its own authority. Later in October, Parliament ordered the committee to directly remove those officers whose loyalties were with the King and to nominate their own candidates to fill these vacant offices. In spite of this, the institutional College was protected by the Parliamentarians, and their rights and work continued unabated. The Restoration of Charles II annulled all the Acts of the Parliament and all the actions of the Lord Protector. Accordingly, all the grant of arms of the Commonwealth College was declared null and void. Furthermore, all heralds appointed during the Interregnum lost their offices, while those appointed originally by Charles I returned to their places. While the Puritans did not actively discourage heraldic display (Cromwell had a coat of arms of which he was particularly proud) they tended to avoid particularly ostentacious displays. Except, for example, when they were in church or chapel windows, many displays of arms survived the Civil War. Some royal arms and the tombs and effigies of some elite families were also sometimes damaged or defaced. The defacement was not restricted to religious buildings, the "Orders of the Committee for the Demolition of Monuments of Superstition and Idolatry" (published 17th May 1643) required the removal of "..images and pictures of any one or more persons of of the Trinity, or of the Virgin Mary ... in any open place withing your parish". Orders also included the defacement of any coats of arms of Charles I.

Alderman Robert Harvey (listed as Councilor 1618, Sheriff 1625, Auditor 1627, alderman 1631) may at one time have lived in Bishop Lloyd's House. He was extensively studied by the Parliamentary Sequestration Committee following the fall of Chester in the Civil War. He had a house in Watergate Street, where he had continued to reside after the war began. According to some accounts this house was burned down by order of the Lords Byron and Cholmondley; after soldiers had failed to ignite it they paid a man named Holmes forty shillings to set it alight. Harvey had been voted Mayor by the corporation of Chester but refused to accept the post, and had spoken against the Royalist cause. He was known to have harboured the goods of fellow Parliamentarians in his house for the purposes of safe-keeping, and almost all witnesses confirmed that his wife had provided food to Parliamentarian soldiers in Chester Castle. However Harvey also had property in Eastgate and there is some suggestion that it was the Eastgate house that was fired. Harvey was given a discharge from sequestration. Notes by Thomas Hughes (CALS, ZCR 60/2/44) suggest that Robert Harvey may have lived at Bishop Lloyd's House and that he may have purchased it very shortly after Lloyd's death in 1615. Harvey is recorded as having died in 1669

Goodmans of Chester (c1500-c1580)
The Goodmans provided several mayors of Chester: Richard (the mercer) was mayor again in 1504-4, and followed by William Goodmam (1532-3 and 1536-7), Ralph Goodman (1547-8), William in (1550-1) when Edmund Gee died in Office, and another William in 1579-80 (who died in office himself). A number of Goodmans are mentioned in the surviving Custom's records for shipping at Chester, particularly William, Adam and Hamo. They appear to have been associated with the vessel "Katherine Goodman of Chester". The family were still involved with shipping in 1566 when records become patchy. The other business in which the Goodman's were involved was thee operation of the Dee Mills and it appears that Ralph and Thomas Goodman gained their interest in the mill c. 1532, by renting them from Sir Richard Cotton. As mill operators they strictly enforced their "soke right" which required most of the inhabitants of Chester to have their corn ground at the Dee Mills. Ralph Goodman died in 1570 and his interest passed to William Goodman, while serving as mayor, who died in 1579 having renewed the lease of the mills and fishery in 1575 from Cotton's widow at the large rent of £140. 1583 Goodman's widow married Alderman Edmund Gamull, later mayor, who in 1588 paid £600 in advance to renew the lease at the reduced rent of £100. Evidently satisfied with that judgement, and perhaps prompted by the extra custom generated by the needs of troops employed in the Irish wars of the 1580s and 1590s, in 1600 Edmund Gamull's son Thomas bought the mills and fishery from Cotton's heirs.



The William Goodman who was mayor in 1550 was probably born in 1500 and died in c1554. This William Goodman made his will on 19 September, 1554, witnessed by a William Aldersey, Sir Richard Lowther, Sir Rauf Houlbrocke, curate of St Brydes (St Bridget), John ffradsham, John Taylior and Elen Calcot "gentilwoman" and Mode Trener widow, and diverse others, naming as executors his wife, Margaret; his brother-in-law, Richard Brereton, Esquire; Thomas Grymesdiche; and William Beche. He had a substantial real estate portfolio including: the house in which he dwelt with its shops etc; Richard Bunberies' house; John Teliors' house; Robart Drias' house; Randull Eatons' house; Thomas Pillyns' house, William Bronnshanke's house, Richard Brerewood .....; a house in Aynnton; Roger Radforde's house, a house in Neston; a house in Fleshmongers Lane; Thomas Davyes' house; Symcocks' house; Bressies' house; Richard Walleys' house, a house in Backforde; Oldefylde. His son was the clergyman Christopher Goodman (c.1518-1603) who assisted in translating the Geneva Bible.

The MP for Lichfield John Goodman (c.1540-1604) was possibly a relative of Christopher Goodman. John Goodman’s father was probably the Chester merchant mentioned in a Privy Council letter of December 1565 as trading in Manchester cottons, and known to have been mayor of Chester at his death on 13 Aug. 1580. Goodman himself, after his call to the bar, held a number of minor offices at his Inn. He was in Ambrose Dudley, the 3rd Earl of Warwick’s service by the time of the preparation for the election of 1586, when the corporation of Warwick suggested his name to the Earl for one of their borough seats. However, in the event the Earl placed Goodman at Lichfield instead. Goodman was still in the Earl’s service about a year before the latter’s death (1590). Goodman made his will 29 Mar. 1603. In it he left a life interest in his Cheshire and Somerset lands to his widow, whom he appointed sole executrix. The will was proved 10 Sept. 1604. John Goodman was succeeded by his son William, who settled at Royston, Hertfordshire. This makes it appear that the Goodman's no longer involved with trade in Chester by the end of the 16th Century (they do appear in the Funeral Certificates) and raises the issue of why their arms appears on Bishop Lloyd's House almost certainly after 1600.

Trade with Spain
The treaty of Medina del Campo was signed on March 27 by the Spanish sovereigns, but its ratification by Henry VII did not occur until September 1490. After the treaty opened up further trade with the Iberian peninsula, Spanish iron, and wine from Portugal, Spain, and Gascony became the basis for a dramatic expansion in Chester's overseas trade, which allowed other Mediterranean commodities to reach the city, and provided new markets for hides and cloth. Chester's trade with Spain focused on the Basque region. Iron imports from northern Spain rose from 939 tons in 1490-1500 to 4,273 tons in 1530-40, and although dropping below 1,000 tons thereafter, survived international tension as a regular item in Chester's trade. 363 tons of iron were imported in 1562-3. It was carried in both local and Iberian ships, but before 1540 alien merchants shipped the largest quantities: 77 per cent in 1490-1500, 36 per cent in 1510-20, 61 per cent in 1523-30, 52 per cent in 1530-40, and 28 per cent in 1540-50. Relatively low quality iron was typically used for the manufacture of horse-shoes and tools. Some Basque iron was of a particularly high quality and at the beginning of the 14th century, iron-ore mines led to a period of demographic and economic growth in the Basque region lasting until the end of the 16th century. The better quality iron would be used, for example, in the manufacture of armour, ship building, and in high status domestic and religious buildings. The Palatinate accounts for Chester show almost all the iron imports to be Spanish or unloaded from Spanish ships, many from the Basque port of Lequeitio.

Although the early 16th century overseas trade at Chester with Ireland, Spain, Portugal, and Brittany expanded, only merchants with a sizeable turnover could carry the heavy costs which arose from carriage from anchorages down the River Dee estuary and from high customs duties. The share of the port's trade controlled by Cestrians fluctuated. Dubliners dominated the Irish Sea trade, and there was strong competition for the rest of the overseas trade from English, Welsh, and Continental merchants. The involvement of the city's leading merchants appears to have ceased between the 1460s and the 1490s. Thereafter, however, their share increased until in the 1510s they were dominant. Such merchants, generally aldermen or common councillors, were engaged mainly in the Spanish trade but also maintained an interest in the Irish and coastal trade. In 1538-42, during Chester's trading zenith, 40-45 per cent of traders were Chester freemen. Most were probably only occasionally involved, and between 1500 and 1550 there were forty or so significant Chester merchants who shipped through the port. Their trade was predominantly in importing iron and wine and exporting hides and cloth, but few were specialists.

Besides iron, small quantities of angora, silk and velvet, liquorice, train oil, woad, and Cordovan skins were sometimes carried. Trade with Portugal and Andalusia in southern Spain through the northern Spanish ports brought cork, dyestuffs, figs and raisins, litmus, pepper and herbs, oil, sugar, wax, and sweet wines to Chester from c. 1509. Never extensive, the trade with Portugal and Andalusia dwindled to only two shipments between 1542 and 1560.



The other set of heraldic motifs on the front of Bishop Lloyd's House relate in part to James I's son Henry Frederick (19 February 1594 – 6 November 1612). Prince Henry was invested as Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester in 1610, and was widely seen as a bright and promising heir to his father's thrones. However, at the age of 18, he predeceased his father, dying of typhoid fever. His younger brother Charles succeeded him as heir apparent to the English, Irish, and Scottish thrones. On Henry Frederick's creation as Prince of Wales the play "Chester's Triumph" was performed in Chester (St George's Day, 1610) and is described at some length on the page relating to Chamber's Book of days. The panel comprises the Tudor Rose of England surrounded by the motto of the Garter Knights. This stands between the letters "I" and "R" for "Iacobus" and "Rex", i.e. King James. The prince was made Knight of the Garter on 14 June 1603. James IV, king of Scots, was made KG in 1590. There was no Prince of Wales during the rule of Elizabeth I. Thus, while the motifs include those of a Prince of Wales they also the Tudor Rose which James used a symbol.

After the death of Elizabeth I (24 March 1603), her successor, James I, quickly sought to end the long and draining Anglo-Spanish War (1585–1604), and the Treaty of London was negotiated. The "Spanish Match" was a proposed marriage between Prince Charles (later king), the son of King James I of Great Britain, and Infanta Maria Anna of Spain (18 August 1606 – 13 May 1646), the daughter of Philip III of Spain. Had Henry Frederick not died a possible dynastic marriage would have been to Ana María Mauricia (22 September 1601 – 20 January 1666) a Spanish infanta known as Anne of Austria. At age eleven in 1612, Anne was betrothed to King Louis XIII of France.

Much has been written about the decay of the Port of Tudor Chester due to the silting of the River Dee. While it is true that silting occurred other factors were also relevant, including the fact that the Dee could not be navigated by the larger ships that were being developed. Despite this Chester remained the largest port in the northwest of England, but overall it was a second-rank provincial town, half the size of York and a third the size of Norwich. Although it carried only a small proportion of England's trade, ranking 12th in a list of 18 provincial ports in 1594-5. It had few, if any, ships of over 100 tons, and was unfavourably located for trading with England's main markets overseas. While well situated for trade with Ireland, its hinterland was not heavily populated or industrially developed, and competition from Liverpool gradually became more serious. The Irish trade was already the backbone of the city's commerce in 1550, and grew from a third of Chester's imports and three quarters of its exports by value in 1582-3 to two thirds of imports and nine tenths of exports a decade later. Medium-range trade included some with the Baltic, but there was little direct interest in longer-range trade. During the 16th Century longer-range trade from England developed only slowly. Meanwhile the Potuguese had found a way around the Cape of Good Hope and were expanding into the east (see: Middleton).

The Spanish Company


The Spanish Company was an English chartered company or corporate body established in 1530. Its Charter was granted by King Henry VIII on 1 September. A further 1577 Charter was granted by Queen Elizabeth I dated 8 June, but there were difficult relations with Spain and frequent closures of trade. It effectively ceased to exist during the Anglo-Spanish War (1585–1604). The Company was re-established in 1605 as President, Assistants and Fellowship of Merchants of England trading into Spain and Portugal, whose purpose was the facilitation and control of English trade between England and Spain through the establishment of a corporate monopoly of approved merchants.

The origins of the Spanish Company are to be found not in England but in the organisation built up by English merchants in the early sixteenth century for their own welfare and protection in the Iberian peninsula. In this there was nothing unusual for both the Merchant Staplers and the Merchant Adventurers had established their headquarters in their mart towns rather than in London. The English merchants trading to Spain and Portugal did not possess any staple towns comparable to Calais or Antwerp; but the chief focus of English commerce was the coastline of Andalusia, the area to which the majority of English cargoes were shipped, and it was in the Andalusian ports of Seville, Sanlucar de Barrameda, Puerto de Santa Maria and Cadiz that the majority of English merchants and factors congregated. As Chester’s continental trade was with Northern Spain, Chester chiefly used the port of Bilboa and its surrounding ports: San Sebastion, Bermec and Portugalete.

In 1517 Don Alfonso Perez de Guzman, 5th Duke of Medina Sidonia, granted to the English merchants resident in Sanlucar their earliest corporate privileges, confirming the position of their leader as the "consul and judge", and bestowing on them "a piece of ground in the street down below the waterside" on which they might at their own expense erect a chapel dedicated to St. George and a burial place for Englishmen. In addition to the church, they also built a hospital for the poor and St George's School, which would be used to meet the needs of the significant English community. The church was owned by the English Catholic church until 1985. Initially the "Spanish Company" had no organisation in England and it only incorporated those who travelled to the south coast, so largely excluding Chester. By the end of the reign of Henry VIII the original Spanish Company no-longer had any real existence. For the next thirty years relations between the Spanish, Dutch and Portuguese were often difficult. With peace between Spain and King James the Spanish Company was renewed.

The 557 founding members of the 1605 incorporation named in the charter consisted of two distinct groups, firstly of 25 nobles, royal officials and knights and then of 532 merchants from 16 named English ports and towns, including Fulke Aldersey, William Aldersey (we do not know which one), William Johnson and George Boys, all merchants of Chester. The key passage in the Charter granted by James I reads:


 * "And for that divers persons our subjects being not brought up in merchandise or use of traffic, but altogether ignorant and inexpert as well in the order and rules of merchandise as in the laws and customs of the realms of Spain and Portugal, and in the customs, usages, tolls and values of moneys, weights and measures, and in all other things belonging to merchandise very necessary, through their ignorance and lack of knowledge do commit many inconveniences and absurdities (as we are informed) to the offence of us and our dear brother the king of Spain, we willing to prevent and meet with such inconveniences and intending to further and help the expert and exercised merchants in their lawful and honest trade, and to establish good order and government in the said trade, of our ample and abundant grace do grant unto the president, assistants and fellowship of merchants that they, and such only as be or shall be of this incorporation or free of this fellowship, shall enjoy the whole entire and only trade and traffic and the whole entire and only liberty, use and privilege of trading and trafficking and using the feat and trade of merchandise, by and through all the parts of Spain and Portugal, from the town of Fuenterrabia in the kingdom or province of Biscay along the coast of Spain or Portugal or either of them unto Barcelona and in all the islands adjoining or appertaining to the said realms, towards the south or west part thereof. And therefore we command all the subjects of us, our heirs and successors, of what degree or quality soever they be, that none of them directly or indirectly do visit haunt frequent or trade, traffic or adventure by way of merchandise into or from any the parts of Spain or Portugal or either of them from the town of Fuenterrabia unto Barcelona, neither within any islands adjoining or appertaining to the said realms, towards the south or west part thereof, other than the president, assistants and fellowship and such particular persons as be of that fellowship, their factors, agents, servants and assigns, upon pain not only to incur our indignation, but also to pay such pains and amercements and also to suffer imprisonment and other pains due to the transgressors of the statutes of the fellowship"



Fuenterrabia, now known in Basque as Hondarribia, is a border town with France facing Hendaye (France) over the Txingudi bay. Given the position of Barcelona the charter of the Spanish Company covered effectively the entire coatline of Spain and Portugal. Membership of the Spanish Company did not come cheaply, it charged up to £20 for membership.

The trade with Spain in iron and cloth was to have a peculiar consequence for the guild structure in Chester. The mercers and spicers (later the grocers) appear to have been associated as early as 1574, for there is a record of them performing "The Three Kings" in the Chester Mystery Plays in that year. Before the establishment of the East India Company in 1600 many spices, such as pepper, nutmeg and cloves would have been obtained via Iberia. Indeed the arms of the grocers features nine cloves and a camel to indicate the distant origin of spices. The mercers and ironmongers were incorporated as one company in 1598 and in 1725 the apothecaries petitioned for incorporation by charter from the city as other incorporated companies "having usually associated with the Company of Mercers and Ironmongers". It was not until 172I that the word apothecary appeared in the title of the Gild. When John Tristram, apothecary, was steward the heading of a meeting read: "The names of the Bretheren of the Worshipful Company of Mercers, Ironmongers and Apothecaries within the City of Chester".

Mercantilism
One central economic policy at the time was "Mercantilism" which is designed to maximize the exports and minimize the imports for an economy. In other words, it seeks to maximize the accumulation of resources within the country and use those resources for one-sided trade. It promotes imperialism, colonialism, protectionism, currency manipulation, and tariffs and subsidies on traded goods to achieve that goal. England began the first large-scale and integrative approach to mercantilism during the Elizabethan Era (1558–1603). An early statement on national balance of trade appeared in "Discourse of the Common Wealth of this Realm of England", 1549:


 * "We must always take heed that we buy no more from strangers than we sell them, for so should we impoverish ourselves and enrich them." (attributed to Sir Thomas Smith).

On this theory, trades and employments should be encouraged were those which tended to develop national strength; trade which enriched another nation was to be discouraged; the prosperity of a neighbour probably, of a rival certainly, was looked upon as injurious. The importance to the State of possessing a large amount of gold and silver gave rise to the doctrine that a trade which exchanged treasure for goods was bad for the country, but that one which exchanged goods for treasure was beneficial. It became, therefore, the duty of the State to control commerce, to encourage or discourage it actively, with a view to maintaining the "balance of trade" that is, of securing an inflow of treasure greater than the outflow and the artificial development of industries regarded as beneficial, as, for instance, the manufacture of gunpowder and ordnance. The principal means to the encouragement of shipping was found in the Navigation Acts, favouring goods exported or imported in English bottoms.

The first great examples of monopolist Companies were the Merchants of the Staple and the Merchant Adventurers, who had exclusive rights of trading in certain classes of goods in Western Europe. Taking a positive view, such monopolies were a condition of the progress of trade. The trader was admitted only if he was an enrolled member of a Company which was responsible for his good behaviour (such as regards accurate weights and measures) and could be penalised if its members set rules and regulations. A Company to which authority had been granted could control its members but unless the grant also conveyed a monopoly, it would have no control over traders who were not members. On the negative side this would appear to block "free trade" and enrich a few at the expense of the many.

The maritime ex­pansion of the sixteenth century opened up new markets or new fields of enterprise, where the economic arguments which had warranted the old monopolies were more effective than ever. In Elizabeth's reign there began a multiplication of chartered Companies for trading in the more remote and less civilised portions of the globe. Thus the Eastern or Prussian Company was established for trading with the Baltic, the Muscovy Company for the Russian trade, the Levant Company for trade with Constaninople, and, finally, on the last day of the year 1600, the East India Company. Early Stuart governments also cashed-in on commerce by selling exclusive "monopolies" on trading in specific goods, thus fixing their retail price. Bitterly unpopular, monopolies were abolished in 1624 by James I’s last Parliament, but Charles I’s ministers, desperate for money, reintroduced them as "patents".

A somewhat conflicting policy was to ban the export of certain goods to as to prevent stortages at home. From 1558 until the 1660's the export of hides and leather was prohibited, except under licence, and an Act 5 and 6 Edward VI cap. 5 actually made transport of these commodities punishable by death (the penalty was abolished in 1572).

Trade Guilds and Charters
The incorporation of trade guilds and like bodies, as well as the establishment of other exclusive practices was nothing new in Chester (see: Charters and Chester Mystery Plays). Chester was granted a Gild Merchant in 1200 but by the middle of the thirteenth century the various crafts gradually formed their own guilds or companies. The Shoemakers' company later claimed to have been established as the guild of St. Martin before 1285–6 (though later still it alleged a 12th-century origin), while in the 1410s the Tailors asserted a less precise claim to have existed since ancient times, and certainly had some form of collective identity soon after 1300, when they made a small annual payment to the earl of Chester to ensure that no-one 'communed' with them on 3rd September (the feast of the Translation of St. Gregory the Great). From the 1360s the Tanners and the Shoemakers enjoyed exclusive and collective privileges in the leather-dressing trade, and during the earlier 15th century many other craft fellowships emerged as corporate bodies which participated in the Corpus Christi festival and could be represented in the city courts by their stewards. Probably most were in being by the 1420s, perhaps crystallized by what was apparently a reorganization and elaboration of the Corpus Christi play shortly before 1422.



No craftsman or trader could work in Chester, and avoid a fine, unless he was a "freeman" and a member of the relevant Guild. The parents or guardians of a minor would agree with a Guild's Master craftsman the conditions for an apprenticeship which would bind the minor for 5–9 years (e.g. from age 14 to 21), and pay a premium to the craftsman and the contract would be recorded in an indenture. Apprentices served at least five years to learn their trade. They could then become freemen of the City and seek admission to the appropriate Craft Guild. To become a freeman, a man had to be the son of a freeman, to have served his apprenticeship to a freeman or be admitted by order of the City Assembly, which usually involved a hefty fee. All these barriers made it difficult for those lacking the capital to set up for themselves or without the approval of their peers to gain access to materials or knowledge, or to sell into certain markets, an area that equally dominated the guilds' concerns. There were a few positive aspects: guilds created "social capital" of shared norms, common information, mutual sanctions, and collective political action. This social capital benefited guild members, even as it arguably hurt outsiders. It could also be said that, guilds had some positive impact in maintaining quality and ensuring effective transfer of skills from generation to generation.

By the end of the 16th Century two local families in Chester were pre-eminent. Six Alderseys traded with the Continent between 1558 and 1603, and family members owned property in and near the city and held civic office. Their wealth became largely concentrated in the hands of the third William Aldersey (d. 1625), who left a personal estate worth over £2,300 and credits of £1,700. The Gamulls (of Gamul House), not quite as wealthy, also held civic office and had interests in the Dee Mills and a salt-works. Another rich overseas merchant was Richard Bavand, mayor and M.P., who died in 1603 owning goods worth c. £400, more than 20 properties in the city, and land outside. Merchants supplemented their profits with advantageous marriages, investment in shipping, farming, property rents, retailing, loans to the Crown, and in some cases smuggling and evasion of tolls. Nevertheless, even the most prominent were less affluent than their counterparts in the main provincial ports.

In 1554 the Chester Merchant Venturers had been granted a charter by Queen Mary I which gave them a monopoly of all local trade to the continent, besides excluding retailers and all followers of manual craft occupations. The latter provision seems to have been disregarded almost from the beginning; the Chester Merchant Adventurers became a fairly comprehensive body despite some early disputes with the town corporation, and the charter was confirmed in 1559 by Elizabeth. One of the items traded with Spain was iron: The peak in this trade occurred during the 1530s when imports averaged more than 400 tons a year. In Elizabeth's reign imports fluctuated but never regained the level achieved during the 1530s. Exports to the continent were dominated by a single commodity, tanned calfskins. The origin of this trade lay in a licence granted by Elizabeth to the Chester merchants in 1584. This licence, which allowed the merchants to export 10,000 dickers of tanned calfskins within twelve years, was intended to relieve the Chester merchants who had suffered heavy losses through piracy and shipwreck during the 1570s. The licence was slightly altered in 1586 and then renewed in 1598, 1605 and 1629, thus continuing the privilege down to the Civil War.

The Aldersey family, in its various branches, was a leading one at and near Chester. There are two William Aldersey's in this story. The first William Aldersey, son by 1513, of Philip Aldersey of Chester who had married Margaret, daughter of John Barnes of Crawshaw, Lancs. The second, born 1543 is a distant cousin. Several Aldersey's were mayors of Chester: Robert 1525-26, Hugh 1528-29, Hugh 1541-42, Hugh 1546-47 (died in office), William 1560-61, William (Snr) 1595-96, John 1603-04, William (Jnr) 1613-14, William (Snr) 1614-15 and Thomas 1640-41. The visitation of 1613 does not entirely agree with this list and has for example a Foulk Aldersley as Mayor in 1594-95.

William Aldersey (c.1513-77)
His father Philip was a younger brother in the line established at Middle Aldersey, some seven miles south-east of Chester. This William was a merchant who traded in a variety of products: in 1534 and 1540 he is found importing general goods, in 1542-3 iron, and afterwards wine. As one of the two sheriffs of the city in 1536-7 he was involved in a dispute over the city’s recordership. In 1536 Ellen Wrine, mother of Ralph Wrine, to whom the office had been granted in the previous year, complained to Thomas Cromwell of her husband’s maltreatment by the mayor and sheriffs, who were seeking to deprive her son of the recordership, which he owed to Cromwell; in her view they were doing so because her husband had informed Cromwell about William Aldersey the sheriff, who had robbed a ship at sea the year before, but what the truth of the matter was, and how it ended is not at all clear. Three years later Aldersey and other Chester men were pardoned for having exported leather without paying the customs duties imposed in 1536; their plea of ignorance of the Act concerned (27 Hen. VIII, c.14) may have implied a protest at the non-representation of the city. In 1546 the Privy Council was ordered to pay £30 to William Aldersey, who was in turn to pay William Goodman, alderman of Chester, for the money he had had to lay out in expenses for the bishop of Caithness. In 1553 Aldersey appears as a tenant of the former Carmelite friary in Chester, in Whitefriars.

In 1283 Chester had received a special summons to send two Members to the Parliament at Shrewsbury which passed sentence on David of Wales, but as part of a county palatine with a parliamentum of its own until the early 16th century Chester received no further summons until enfranchised by the Act of 1543. Aldersey and his fellow-Member in the Parliament of 1547, Richard Sneyd, are the first two representatives of Chester whose names have been preserved. Following its enfranchisement in 1543 the city had doubtless returned Members to the Parliament of 1545 — or even perhaps to the third session (1544) of the previous one — and from the outset it probably adopted the practice, which was to become de rigueur, of electing its recorder and a leading citizen. Thus each time he was returned Aldersey had the recorder as his senior colleague: in 1547 and April 1554 it was Sneyd, in 1555 William Gerard II.



It was during Aldersey’s Membership of Queen Mary’s second Parliament that he procured the grant of the charter incorporating the merchant adventurers of Chester. This followed the presentation of a memorial by Aldersey, Richard Poole and Robert Massey complaining of the numbers of artificers and manual workers in the city who engaged in foreign trade, often in secret and without payment of customs. The charter of May 1554 therefore made a seven-year apprenticeship obligatory on all who intended to trade as overseas merchants. Aldersey’s leadership of the campaign was acknowledged by his being named the company’s first master. Similar movements were taking place at the time in London and other ports, and the Chester company encountered the same kind of opposition as did its counterparts from those whom they excluded. Its claim to promote the yield of customs must have rung hollow when in October 1554 Aldersey and other members were fined £100 for having paid no customs on consignments of leather, calfskins and wheat, and within a month its critics were writing to the city’s Members in the Parliament then in session about the pernicious consequences of the charter. Whatever their damage to his reputation, these developments did not prevent Aldersey’s election to the next Parliament.

William Aldersey (1543-1616)
He was born in Chester (1543) to Ralphe Aldersey and Jane daughter to William Goodman of Chester (according to The 1613 Visitation). However the biography given by the National Archives has him as the son of another William Aldersey (see: ZCR 469).

William Aldersey (1543-1616) married Mary (daughter of John Brereton) and had 1 daughter (Alice). According to some sources Alice would marry the tenth John Leche of Leche House, however the pedigrees of the period are sometimes inconsistent, and there were several William Aldersey's. The information for the portrait of William Aldersey (1543-1616) on the Art Fund page relating to his portrait in the Grosvenor Museum (which hangs next to that of Bishop Lloyd) states that:


 * "He was a merchant ironmonger and so successful in overseas trade that he became a founding member of the East India Company in 1600."

This information is apparently taken from documents which were passed down through the Leche family. His name does not appear in the founders charter, but there is a "William Adderley* listed among the shareholders (but only in some lists), mentioned as "William Adderley and Thomas Henshawe" (This Thomas Henshawe (abt. 1555 - 1612) could be the father-in-law of Chester MP Sir John Bingley who was born in Chester and married Anne Henshaw). "Adderley" subscribed at the rate of £240 per share during 1601, but (according to one source, others differ) the distributed profit on the first voyage by 1603 was nearly 300 per cent, and over all the East India voyages up to 1616 was never less than 220 per cent. Although the details are sometimes inconsitent between sources it does seem that there is only possibly an association between the William Aldersey (1543-1616) and the East India Company. It is almost certain that Aldersey would have known the Middletons. There is possibly much better evidence that Aldersey had an association with the Spanish Company as re-established by King James.



The genealogy of the Aldersey family is very complicated, so further research is needed to identify the precise relation of the family members and their associates to the Middletons. The documents which come down through the Leche family include the "Aldersey Memorandum Book" which dates from the 16th Century and includes an inventory of the goods of Raphe Aldersey (d 1554) as well as the noted Aldersey List of Mayors. A note on the outer envelope by William Fergusson Irvine (1869-1962) reads:


 * "Raphe Aldersey was the father of Wm Aldersey twice mayor of Chester whose dau Alice married John Leche in 1616. Raphe Aldersey died 30th June 1554 and it is probable that he book was continued by Wm Aldersey his son who compiled the annals of Chester a copy of which is to be found in Charles Leches Book."

Irvine was the father of Andrew Irvine who, with his climbing partner George Mallory disappeared somewhere high on the Mount Everest's northeast ridge and is presumed to have died.

Merchant Adventurers
The Company of Merchant Adventurers to New Lands was an early joint stock association, which began with private exploration and enterprise, and was to have been incorporated by King Edward VI in 1553, but received its full royal charter in 1555. The full name of the Company was "Mystery and Company of Merchant Adventurers for the Discovery of Regions, Dominions, Islands, and Places unknown". It led to the commencement of English trade with Russia, Persia and elsewhere, and became known informally, and later formally, as the Muscovy Company. The first expedition of the Company of Merchant Adventurers was led by Hugh Willoughby, who was chosen for his military leadership skills after esteemed service against the Scots defending English castles in the north of the country. They hoped to find a northeast sea route to the Far East. Willoughby had no prior nautical or navigational experience and it was hoped he would transition into naval life with the same aplomb he showed on land. After the ships became separated near the North Cape Willoughby and his crew were never seen alive again, but the events following their separation can be pieced together from Willoughby's journal which was later recovered.

Further attempts to establish the company and its privileges resulted in the a Charter from Queen Elizabeth. This stated its goal as:


 * "Since the making of which letters patents, the said fellowship haue, to their exceeding great costes, losses and expences, not onely by their trading into the said dominions of the said mightie prince of Russia, &c., found out conuenient way to saile into the saide dominions: but also passing thorow the same, and ouer the Caspian sea, haue discouered very commodious trades into Armenia, Media, Hyrcania, Persia, and other dominions in Asia minor, hoping by Gods grace to discouer also the country of Cathaia, and other regions uery conuenient to be traded into by merchants of this realme, for the great benefite and commodities of the same."

As will be obvious, the object of the company was to promte private exploration with the incentive of some form of monopoly on any trade so established.

The similarly named Company of Merchant Adventurers of London was a trading company founded in the City of London. The company received its royal charter from King Henry IV in 1407, but its roots may go back to the Fraternity of St. Thomas of Canterbury. It claimed to have liberties existing as early as 1216. The Duke of Brabant granted privileges and in return promised no fees to trading merchants. The company was chiefly chartered to the English merchants at Antwerp in 1305. Henry IV's charter was in favor of the English merchants dwelling in Holland, Zeeland, Brabant, and Flanders.

It brought together leading merchants in a regulated company in the nature of a guild. Its members' main business was exporting cloth, especially white (undyed) woolen broadcloth, in exchange for a large range of foreign goods. It's objective was not exploration. It traded known northern European ports rather than sailing into unknown waters, competing with the Hanseatic League. It came to focus on Hamburg. One benefit of organising as a Company was that resources could be shared between shareholders. Initially, shares were only available to those actually engaged in the relevant trade, but the idea of simply investing capital soon emerged.



The Chester Company
The Chester company of Merchant Venturers' Charter was granted in May 1554. As noted above this was in part the work of the elder William Aldersey. The Charter stated that:


 * "According to tho complaint of William Aldersey, Richard Poole, and Richard Massye, and others (Merchant Venturers). Artisans and Craftsmen without suitable knowledge have trafficked in foreign merchandise to the defrauding of tho Queen's customs and the injury of the shipping interest of Chester. The Queen therfore appoints William Aldersey, Master of the Merchant Venturers in Chester, with two wardens, Richard Poole and Richard Massye, and they, with other citizens who are not of any manual art, who have exercised the art or mystery of Merchant Venturers for seven years last past, should be one body corporate under the name of the Master, Wardens and Commonalty of Merchant Venturers of Chester. No craftsman or other person of the City is to resort to merchandise in foreign parts, unless admitted to the Society, and this grant is not to prejudice the rights of the Crown, the privileges of the Mayor or the Governor and Society of Merchant Adventurers frequenting Spain, Holland, Zeeland, Brabant and Flanders."

This was a remarkable coup and it is worth speculating on how Aldersey managed to pull it off. One relevant fact is that Mary was about to marry Philip II of Spain and Aldersey's argument possibly related to customs which should have been collected from the trade with Spain.

The arms of the Merchant Venturers also appear on Henry Hardware’s memorial plaque in Tarvin at St Andrews Church. This also contains a bullet hole from the Civil War.

Soon after Thomas Massey and the recorder, his kinsman Richard Sneyd, had begun to attend the Parliament of November 1554 they received a letter from the Chester city authorities about the charter which William Aldersey had procured for the Merchant Adventurers of Chester; in the belief of some, this was likely to prove so harmful to the city that the two Members were to raise the subject with the chancellor. What came of this has not been discovered, but Massey may well have approached chancellor Stephen Gardiner through his cousin the chancellor’s servant Robert Massey, who sat in this Parliament for the Flint Boroughs. The matter appears to have arisen again as in 1589 an order was made at Chester forbidding merchants who were members of the Merchant Adventurers from exercising any manual occupation but allowing them to retail in any one trade.

Dispute with Chester


The complications with the presence of prior dealings with Spain at Bristol, Exeter and Chester were to lead to issues. The city which was to give the Spanish Company most trouble, however, was Chester. Within 18 months of the incorporation of the Spanish Company it was at odds with the Merchant Venturers, the outports and the government. In 1577, president John Mershe asked the Merchant Venturers to confer with him over the question of membership. Like their fellows in Exeter they were then established as an outport branch, with a deputy and assistants chosen from among the leading merchants of the town.

The Iberian merchants of Chester made themselves unpopular at home by insisting that all those who traded to Spain and Portugal should join the Spanish Company, on the grounds that the charter of 1554 allowing them to trade without restrictions had been superseded by the new (1577) charter of the Spanish Company. At the same time they tried to prevent those Merchant Adventurers who both traded abroad and retailed goods from doing so, ordering them to choose one activity and abandon the other. Although technically the dispute lay between the Spanish Company and the Chester Merchant Venturers it soon degenerated into a faction fight among the latter who were divided into the 'mere merchants' and the merchant retailers. More accurately the first group comprised the large-scale merchants whose prosperity was based entirely on commerce, the second the smaller traders whose less ample resources forced them to supplement their income by practising an additional craft or occupation. To add to the confusion, Eric Massey, the Spanish Company deputy in Chester, had meanwhile been attempting without much success to enforce the company monopoly over the merchants of Liverpool, one of the subsidiary havens of Chester. The Liverpool merchants, angered by this interference, sided with the 'merchant retailers' in Chester, and invoked the assistance of a powerful local magnate, the earl of Derby, who took the matter up in London. At first Francis Walsingham granted the merchants of Liverpool the right to trade as they pleased.

At last in November 1581 the privy council intervened, ordering the lord chief justice and the master of the rolls to hear the conflicting arguments put forward by Thomas Wilford, Mershe's successor, acting for the company, and some of the merchants of Chester and Liverpool. The law lords concluded that the Spanish Company had acted beyond its powers in attempting to prevent the retailers from trading, since in the small outports there were not enough mere merchants to maintain the trade. The privy council thereupon permitted the merchant retailers to continue their commerce and informed the earl of Derby of its decision.

This was not the end of the matter, for in September 1582 the privy council was forced to repeat the whole process as the quarrel had not abated. It summoned the Chester merchants to London and reiterated its orders that the branch of the Spanish Company within the town should not stop the retailers from trading. Again the settlement was short-lived for in 1584 the "mere merchants being members of the Spanish Company" obtained from Queen Elizabeth a licence to export 10,000 dickers of calfskins a year. A "dicker" is ten skins. The retailers complained that this was another ploy to monopolise the trade, while the mere merchants argued that as the grant had been awarded "in respect of their losses sustained by the French" as a result of privateering, the retailers who had suffered no such injuries were not entitled to participate. If they were to share in the transport of calfskins, the mere merchants asked that they in compensation should be allowed to retail. Finally in July 1589 the councillors adopted the mere merchants' suggestion and in an attempt to obtain a lasting solution they ordered that henceforth all retailers might trade freely and take advantage of the licence, provided that the merchants could retail goods if they wished. By now the cessation of commerce following the outbreak of war with Spain had rendered the conflict pointless, and at last it ended.



The altercation over the powers of the Spanish Company in Chester was not a headlong clash between the Londoners and the outport merchants of the type that was to occur in 1605. Moreover, its continuation into 1589, after the company had ceased to hold its courts, reinforces the impression that it was essentially a conflict between two groups within Chester. Then, too, Massey by his bullying arrogance had needlessly inflamed the situation. Nevertheless the privy council by its decision not to enforce the company monopoly had grievously weakened the chances of any effective control over the outports when the war came to an end. The significance of the affair must have made an impact in many places other than Chester itself.

However, conflicts between the company and the outports were not so widespread as to preclude all co-operation between them. Each provincial deputy and treasurer was expected to make an annual visit to the capital to render the accounts of membership fees and fines; they also attended the annual elections which took place in the general court on Ascension day or shortly after. Besides being responsible to the central administration for its own affairs, each major outport controlled the smaller havens of its division or stretch of coastline allotted to it, which roughly followed the divisions of the customs system. The details of Chester's intervention at Liverpool suggest that at least some of the head ports made a genuine effort to organise the smaller ones.

The East India Company


In 1599, a group of prominent merchants and explorers met to discuss a potential East Indies venture under a royal charter. Three months earlier, on July 19, Admiral Jacob Corneliszoon van Neck of the Dutch Compagnie Van Verre — the Company of Distant Lands — had successfully returned from Indonesia with a vast cargo of spices: eight hundred tons of pepper, two hundred tons of cloves, and great quantities of cinnamon and nutmeg. The voyage made an unprecedented 400 percent profit: “There never arrived in Holland ships so richly laden”, wrote one envious Levant Company observer.

Besides Ralph Fitch and James Lancaster, the group included Stephen Soame, then Lord Mayor of London; Thomas Smythe, a powerful London politician and administrator, whose father had established the Levant Company; Sir John Wolstenholme; Richard Hakluyt, writer and apologist for British colonization of the Americas; and several other sea-farers who had served with Drake and Raleigh. They convened again on 31 December 1600, and Queen Elizabeth, responded favourably to a petition by "George, Earl of Cumberland and 218 others, including James Lancaster, Sir John Harte, Sir John Spencer (both of whom had been Lord Mayor of London), the adventurer Edward Michelborne, the nobleman William Cavendish and other Aldermen and citizens of London. Many of those in this group had been associated with the Merchant Adventurers, i.e. the exporters of cloth such as wool rather than those interested in exploration and the development of new colonies.

The queen initially agreed, possibly because she wanted to keep the City on her side in case of a threatened rebellion by the unruly Robert Devereux, second Earl of Essex, and so she proved surprisingly receptive to the petition. Devereux has an unlikely connection with Chester in that he turns up in the Chester Pageant 1937 where episode 7:


 * ..closes with the arrival of the Earl of Essex (Earl Marshal of England) on his way to Ireland to subdue the rebellion of Tyrone. A page gives the earl some wine and a beautiful girl ties a favour to his arm. The earl raises a toast to Queen Elizabeth and the crowd cheers as he rides off. All then dance out of the arena.

After some delay, the Queen granted her charter to their corporation named "Governor and Company of Merchants of London trading into the East Indies". This is better known as the "East India Company".

Named in the Charter was the Chester-born captain John Middleton. For a period of fifteen years, the charter awarded the company a monopoly on English trade with all countries east of the Cape of Good Hope and west of the Straits of Magellan. Any traders there without a licence from the company were liable to forfeiture of their ships and cargo (half of which would go to the Crown and half to the company), as well as imprisonment at the "royal pleasure". John Middleton was one of the 24 members of the "First and present Committee" of the Company as named in its founding charter. Sir James Lancaster commanded the first East India Company voyage in 1601 aboard Malice Scourge, afterwards named Red Dragon. John's brother Henry Middleton was appointed purser of Red Dragon; but shortly before the fleet sailed Henry was advanced to be a "factor" for the voyage, and another purser was appointed in his stead. Later Henry was appointed to Susan (formerly a Levant trader with 24 guns) as "captain and chief-merchant". John Middleton was both the vice-admiral of the the EIA's first expedition and captain of Hector (300 tons, 108 men, 24 guns) and died at Bantam shortly after his brother Henry and Susan had set sail for home. In March 1604, Sir Henry Middleton commanded the Company's second voyage. General William Keeling, a captain during the second voyage, led the third voyage aboard Red Dragon from 1607 to 1610 along with Hector under Captain William Hawkins and Consent under Captain David Middleton a third Middleton brother from Chester. By now James I was king and in 1609 he extended the period of monopoly to be indefinite.

Although these early attempts to break into the spice trade were successful the Malay archipelago and the Moluccas were conceded to the Dutch following the Amboina Massacre in 1632. The Dutch East India Company was established in 1602 and, in addition to the spice trade in the Indonesian archipelago, opened up markets in India, China and Japan. They later stopped the English from gaining a hold on the lucrative spice trade, and seized Portuguese possessions in the Far East. The company flourished, and at the peak of its power had 150 merchantmen, guarded by 40 warships and 10,000 soldiers. Their main port was Batavia (Jakarta), and in 1652 a staging post was set up at the Cape of Good Hope. In the late 18th century, however, wars with rivals, general mismanagement, and widespread corruption brought about a decline, and in 1798 the Dutch government took over the company.

By 1652 over 20 posts or “factories” had been set up in India, including major centres near Surat, Calcutta and Madras. With the defeat of the French in the 18th century - due in large part to the activities of the company official Robert Clive in the battles of Arcot and Wandiwash - rule was slowly developed across most of the sub-continent. From then on, corruption became widespread, and the home government began to take over the administration, appointing a governor-general in 1773, and extending government control by Pitt's India Act of 1784. The Company’s trading monopoly came to an end in India in 1813 and in China in 1833, and, following the Indian Mutiny of 1857, the company was closed down. By the Government of India Act 1858 the Company's territories in India were to be vested in Queen Victoria, the Company ceasing to exercise its power and control over these territories. India was to be governed in the Queen's name as Empress of India.

War with Ireland and the Golden Speech
This article started with a statement that the arms displayed on Bishop Lloyds house must probably date from 1600-1605 when he was bishop of Sodor and Man and entitled to use them. The Merchant Venturers arms appears on the same panel and therefore dates from the same time. If the panel with the arms of James I was made at the same time this dates them to 1603-05, i.e. following the death of Elizabeth, when it would have become clear that Prince Henry would eventually become Prince of Wales and the Earl that Chester had long lacked (as he did in 1610).

1603-05 was also the time of a widespread and severe epidemic of bubonic plague in Chester which was unusual in Chester in falling into two contrasting phases. The first was long drawn out but relatively mild: 933 dead out of c. 5,220 inhabitants over 83 weeks represented a death rate of 11 per cent a year, four times the annual rate of the previous decade but not as severe as that experienced elsewhere. The second phase killed 1,041 people in 34 weeks, or 20 per cent a year among a population probably as large as in 1603. Preventive measures taken in Chester by the Assembly in 1603-5 may have retarded the spread of infection, even though they were conventional and crude: erecting pesthouses on the outskirts to isolate the sick; destruction of infected bedding; orders against overcrowded housing; and a ban on the Michaelmas fair and Christmas watch in 1604 to prevent crowds from gathering. Coincidentally trade through Chester declined: fewer merchants brought goods in, maritime trade was in the doldrums, and cloth exports in 1604 were only a tenth of their level in 1602. This particular plague cycle may well have been associated with the movement of troops through Chester in support of the Irish wars and the famines of the past years. War, famine and pestilence being known as companions. This did not stop some ascribing the plague to the accession of king James, or associating it with Kepler's Supernova.

The Irish War
One of the main difficulties of the last years of the rule of Queen Elizabeth was the war in Ireland which broke out in 1579. The crisis point of the Elizabethan conquest of Ireland came when the English authorities tried to extend their authority over Ulster and Aodh Mór Ó Néill, the most powerful Irish lord in Ireland. Though initially appearing to support the crown, Ó Néill engaged in a proxy war in Fermanagh and northern Connacht, by sending troops to aid Aodh Mag Uidhir lord of Fermanagh. This distracted the crown with military campaigns in the west while Tyrone consolidated his power in Ulster. Ó Néill openly broke with the crown in February 1595 when his forces took and destroyed the Blackwater Fort on the Armagh-Tyrone border. Later named the Nine Years War, Ó Néill focused his action in Ulster and along its borders, until Spanish promises of aid in 1596 led him to spread the conflict to the rest of Ireland. What had started as a war for regional autonomy became a war for the control of Ireland.



Chester was the main port used for sending English troops levied in other parts of the country, who passed through the city frequently and in growing numbers. The mayor and other officials were often fully occupied with receiving them and arranging quarters, food, and money. Ships were requisitioned and provisioned, and supplies of food, drink, stores, and ammunition were sent to Ireland. The repeated demands strained local markets, especially during the shortages of the later 1590s: prices rose, ships' masters demanded large payments, there were difficulties with the authorities of Liverpool, disaffected men deserted in droves and were rarely captured, weapons were often found to be defective, moneys were embezzled, profiteering was rife, and Chester earned a reputation as a 'robber's cave'. Disorderly conduct was frequent, especially when troops were delayed by bad weather or lack of ships. To contain it, in 1594 the mayor erected a gibbet at the High Cross. The mayors in this period were: 1599-1600, Henry Hardware (junior); 1600-01 Robert Brerewood (who died in office) and Richard Bavand; 1601-02 John Ratcliffe (sen); 1602-03, Hugh Glazier; 1603-04, John Aldersey and 1604-05, Edward Dutton.

Almost all of these people were either major merchants or relatives in mercantile families:


 * Henry Hardware was the son of the same named father with the Merchant Adventurers arms on his memorial at Tarvin;


 * Robert Brerewood worked as both a glover and a tanner, and was (untypically) also a retailer. He also dealt in wool from sheepskins and timber purchased for the bark (used in tanning);


 * Richard Bavand is the brother-in-law of John Middleton who was himself the father of the three Middleton brothers associated with the East India Company. Bavand was MP for Chester in 1584;


 * John Ratcliffe rose to prominence as a brewer in Chester, eventually serving as mayor in 1601-2. Described as a "very worthy good man and religious, careful and painful in his profession", he became so wealthy that he reputedly "kept many servants and the poor had great relief at his house". His son was Chester MP John Ratcliff and his son in turn another John Ratcliffe and another MP;


 * Hugh Glasier was elected MP for Chester in 1601. During the year of his mayoralty he corresponded with Robert Cecil about problems in the city caused by troops on their way to and from Ireland. He died in London on 6 July 1610.


 * John Aldersey (c1553-1605), according to the 1613 visitation was a son of William Aldersey (mayor, who died in 1577) and Margaret Barnes and therefore the brother of Fulke (mayor in 1594-95, died 1608) who was involved with the Spanish Company. John Aldersey was one of the first victims of the plague when it returned in May 1605.


 * Edward Dutton remained in the city during the ongoing plague and paid for remaining in the city by having his house twice infected and losing some of his children and servants. Overall a third of freemen and half of the "lower classes" died.

With the Irish victory at the Battle of the Yellow Ford, the collapse of the Munster Plantation, followed by the dismal vice-royalty of Robert Devereux, 2nd Earl of Essex, the power of the Crown in Ireland came close to collapse. In October 1601 Spanish forces landed in Ireland. During the two years from early 1600 many reinforcements passed through the port, the mayor received a stream of orders from the privy council, and there were further problems of supply and unruly behaviour.

The Golden Speech
The monopolies of the Elizabethan economic model also led to protests. The Queen used some grants of exclusive rights to trade in return for favours, services and loans and as a source of income. The earliest recorded parliamentary objections were raised in the Commons during the 1571 Parliament by Robert Bell who complained that "by lycenses a fewe were enriched and the multitude impoverished". For this he was severely reprimanded by the Privy Council. Elizabeth quashed the potential for further agitation by promising to "take order for lycenses, wherein she had bene carefull and more carefull woulde bee". In the 1597-98 Parliament protests against monopolies were referred to an investigating committee who drafted a petition that was delivered by the Speaker at the close of the session. Elizabeth responded by graciously defending her prerogative:


 * "which is the chiefest flower in her garland and the principall and head pearle in her crowne and dyadem’, and claimed that having already begun to review offensive grants ‘soe she promiseth to continewe and that they shall all be examined to abide the tryall and true touchstone of the lawe".

In fact very few were cancelled, and new patents continued to be issued. By 1601, while the first expedition of the East India Company was at sea and the Spanish were preparing to land in Ireland, many MPs were determined to hold Elizabeth to her word and demanded not just that abuses be addressed but that the legality of all such grants be challenged: a clash over the prerogative was therefore unavoidable. Numerous Members brought in evidence that the "principallest commodityes ... are ingrossed into the handes of these bloodsuckers of the commonwealth", and attacked monopolies as "the whirlepoole of the prince’s profittes". The queen’s famous "Golden Speech on monopolies to a delegation of around 140 Members was a master stroke that defused an ugly impasse and made her seem generous without, in fact, conceding a great deal. It was given on 30th November 1601. At the same time as admitting that some of her grants had been a "lapse of error" she maintained her prerogative, asserting that "yt is lawefull for our kingly state to grant guiftes of sundrie sorts of whome we make election".

Related Pages

 * Middleton;
 * Leche House;
 * Bishop Lloyd's House;
 * Charters;
 * Portpool;
 * Chester Mystery Plays;
 * Tudor Chester;
 * Stuart Chester;
 * Pandemic;

Online

 * An excellent article on the Merchant Adventurers;
 * Bishop Llloyd's House in the Civil War;

Economics

 * The Merchant Adventurers Company in the reign of Elizabeth
 * The Spanish Company;
 * History of the Commerce and Town of Liverpool: Thomas Baines;
 * The global interests of London’s commercial community, 1599-1625: investment in the East India Company;
 * Questioning Credible Commitment: Perspectives on the Rise of Financial Capitalism;
 * The Gentry are sequestred all’: A study of English Civil War sequestration;
 * A CRISIS OF CREDIT IN THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY, OR OF HISTORICAL INTERPRETATION?;

The Port of Chester

 * "A PRETENDED VOYAGE TO AMERICA";
 * THE TRADE OF CHESTER AND THE STATE OF THE DEE NAVIGATION 1600 - 1800;
 * Papers of the Manchester Literary Club:
 * THE PORT OF CHESTER IN THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY;
 * Customs Records for Chester 1301-1566;
 * THE CHESTER COMPANIES AND THE OLD QUAY.
 * THE OVERSEAS TRADE OF CHESTER, 1600-1650;

Heraldry

 * A Geenealogical Account of the Family of Aldersey;
 * DISCLAIMERS AT THE HERALDS' VISITATIONS;
 * Puritan Iconoclasm in England 1640-1660;

Others

 * Henry Hardware's Moment and the Puritan Attack on Drama;
 * CHESHIRE FUNERAL CERTIFICATES;
 * Calendar of Chester City Council Minutes 1603-1642;
 * The 1553 Succession Crisis Reconsidered;