gn-J S. X. Aug. U. '60.] 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



113 



then incorporated with another small company of 

 Turkey merchants, under the title of " The Com- 

 pany of Merchants of the Levant." * In the 

 course of the year 1600 complaints were made to 

 the queen that the company had interpreted the 

 clause in their patent which gave the sole right of 

 carrying on the trade to themselves, and to such 

 persons as they might licence, to mean that they 

 might levy a duty of 5s. 6d. per cwt. upon all cur- 

 rants imported. It was represented to Elizabeth 

 that it was never intended that a few London 

 merchants should levy customs' duties for their 

 own profit, and that to allow such proceedings any 

 longer would be derogatory to the honour of her 

 crown. The question was never decided. The 

 government, taking advantage of a technical flaw 

 in the charter, pronounced it to have been null 

 and void from the beginning. As soon as this 

 was made known, the queen was pressed by many 

 merchants who were not members of the com^ 

 pany to throw the trade open. They declared 

 that they were willing not only to support the 

 ambassador at Constantinople, and the consuls at 

 the different ports of the Levant, a burden which 

 had hitherto fallen upon the company, but that 

 they were ready, in addition to these expenses, to 

 pay to the queen the duty of 5s. 6^. per cwt. which 

 had been for some time extorted from them by 

 the company for their own private advantage. 



The queen, however, preferred bargaining with 

 the old company, and granted them a new char- 

 ter, in which their monopoly was confirmed to 

 them on consideration of an annual payment to the 

 exchequer of 4000^. 



During the few remaining years of Elizabeth's 

 reign the Venetian trade was unprosperous. The 

 Venetians put new restrictions upon the export 

 of currants in order to favour their own naviga- 

 tion. Consequently when, soon after James's ac- 

 cession, the proclamation against monopolies was 

 issued, whilst the other great trading companies 

 remained in possession of their privileges, the 

 Levant company appeared at the council table, 

 and voluntarily surrendered their charter as a 

 monopoly. In return, they were excused the 

 payment of their arrears, which amounted to 

 2000Z. 



The forfeiture of this charter caused a defi- 

 ciency in the king's revenue. It was only natural 

 that, the trade being now open, the council should 

 recur to the old imposition which had been ori- 

 ginally levied before the formation of the Vene- 

 tian company. They could hardly expect any 

 opposition from the merchants. Those who were 

 not members of the company had, in 1600, ex- 

 pressed their readiness to pay the tax, and those 

 who were members had for years exacted it for 

 their own profit. But before taking any steps they 



* The patent is printed in Hakluyt (ed. 1599), ii. 295. 

 See also Fleming's judgment in the State Trials, ii. 391. 



determined to take a legal opinion upon their 

 right to impose. That opinion being favourable 

 to the claim of the crown, they directed the Trea- 

 surer to reimpose the former duties.* 



Nor was the consideration shown to the mer- 

 chants limited to pardoning the arrears of their 

 debt. It was not customary for them to pay such 

 duties immediately upon landing their goods, but 

 to give bonds for their payment at a future time. 

 Nearly a year passed, and the payments due upon 

 the bonds which had been given since the impo- 

 sition of the new duties were not forthcoming. It 

 was in vain that the council pressed the Treasurer 

 to call for these payments.f He was met with objec- 

 tions, and declarations of inability to pay. Upon 

 this, in Nov. 1604, the whole subject was once 

 more taken into consideration!, and a discharge 

 was granted to the merchants of the whole of their 

 arrears for eighteen months, which were esti- 

 mated at about 6000/. This was done upon the 

 understanding that the imposition should be paid 

 In future. 



In 1605 the state of the Turkey trade was once 

 more brought before the government. Though 

 the monopoly had ceased, the Levant company 

 still continued to trade as a private company ; 

 but it was no longer able to support the ambassa-^ 

 dor and the consuls. Debts had in consequence 

 been incurred in. the East, and feai's were enter- 

 tained lest the Turkish authorities should seize 

 the buildings and property of the company.§ 

 Tlie merchants requested Salisbury to obtain for 

 them the reestablishment of the company on a 

 new footing. Once more Salisbury took measures 

 to be sure that he was not about to do anything 

 illegal. He had heard, that it had been lately said 

 that the establishment of any trading company at 

 all was illegal. He accordingly wrote to Chief 

 Justice Popham.|( Having received an answer 

 from Popham favourable to the powers claimed 

 by the crown, he obtained from the king letters 

 patent constituting the new company.^ The new 

 company was formed upon a plan which was now 

 favoui'ed by the government. The company itself 

 was to have a monopoly of the Levant trade, but 

 it was to be open to all merchants who werQ 

 ready to pay a certain sum towards the expenses 

 of the trade, and especially to defray the salary 

 of the ambassador and the consuls, and to make 



* S. P. O., Domestic, the Council to the Lord Treasurer, 

 Oct. 31st, 1603, vol. iv. 46. 



t S- P- 0-» Domestic, Docquet of letter, July 23rd, 

 1604. 



J S. P. 0., Domestic, Docquet of discharge, Nov. 10 th, 

 1604. 



§ S. P. O., Domestic, R, Stapers to Salisburj', July 

 8th, 1605, vol. XV. 4. 



II S. P. 0., Domestic, Salisbury to the Chief Justice, 

 Sept. 8th, 1605, vol. xv. 54. 



t S. P, O.J, Ppmestic, Warrant, Dec 13tb, 1605, vol, 

 xvij. 35. 



