PREFATORY NOTE

I WISH gratefully to acknowledge my indebtedness to Girton College for the award of the Cairnes Scholarship which enabled me to write this thesis, and also for the grant for its publication; to the London School of Economics for the opportunities for research work provided by it; to Archdeacon Cunningham for very kindly reading and criticising the manuscript; to Mr Hubert Hall, of the Public Record Office, and to the Rev. John Anderson, of the General Register House, for kind help; and especially to Dr Lilian Knowles, Reader in Economic History in the University of London, for constant help and encouragement.

THEODORA KEITH.
8 July 1910.

From this point of view the commercial relationships, which Miss Keith has described so clearly and so fully, are particularly instructive. The study of the material interests of large sections of the population in both countries, brings into light motives which we may easily overlook unless attention is specially called to them. The bearing of merchants' grievances on questions of constitutional privilege was indirect and remote, and such topics rarely formed the theme of pulpit eloquence; but for all that, they were of extraordinary importance. The consideration of them helps us to understand why two countries, which were so closely associated and had so much in common, were kept apart; as well as to see the nature of the difficulties which had to be faced, when they were brought under one Crown. So far as religious and political affairs were concerned, close affinities existed between parties in Scotland and parties in England, and they were drawn into correspondence and sympathy; in the seventeenth century there was good reason, from time to time, for hoping that similar institutions, civil and ecclesiastical, might be established in each country. It almost seems as if the conduct and prospects of trade furnished the main reasons why Englishmen and Scots rallied into separate and hostile camps. Commercial interests united the people of each country in a common antagonism to their neighbour, and commercial jealousies kept these neighbours apart.

It is almost inevitable that two adjacent countries, with similar products and similar opportunities for industry, should be rivals in trade; but the commercial jealousy between England and Scotland became much more pronounced when they were brought into closer connection with each other by the Union of the Crowns. Trade relationships in these days were closely dependent on political affinities. When the two countries were ruled over by one monarch, the relations of friendship and hostility with foreign powers came to be the same for both; the Scots ceased to have opportunities for trade in places from which Englishmen were practically excluded, and the Scots merchants were forced to try and compete in markets where English traders had established their footing. There had been an ancient amity between France and Scotland; and Scots merchants had had privileges in French ports, such as Englishmen did not enjoy. The religious and political revolution in Scotland in the time of Queen Mary need not in itself have caused a rupture in this long established mercantile intercourse; but when Scotland was practically forced to follow the line of English policy, in regard to relationships with foreign powers, it was impossible for her to maintain her separate commercial privileges; Scots and English merchants were brought into direct competition with one another in the same markets.

There is nothing, with the exception of a foreign invasion, which brings home to the ordinary citizen the results of government action so effectively as an interruption or decline in commerce. Miss Keith has shewn in detail how deep was the influence of the disabilities under which Scots trade laboured even in the reigns of James I and Charles I, and still more under the diverse policies of Cromwell and Charles II. The merchants in the towns, and their dependents would be the first sufferers, but industry would be affected as well; and in the case of Scotland, which exported wool and raw products, the effect would be felt far and wide. A sense of grievance against England must have penetrated very deeply; neither the policy of the first Stuart kings, nor the free trade conditions of the Inter-regnum conciliated the Scots, while the legislation of the Restoration Parliament was hostile to their interests. This aspect of the case has been too much left out of sight, and Miss Keith has rendered a real service by bringing it into prominence. Much stress has been laid on the influence of religious conviction—the opposition to Laud and the sufferings of the Covenanters—in contributing to the failure of the Dual Monarchy; but account should also be taken of the fact that the conditions it brought about in Scotland were unfavourable to business.

While this study of the commercial relations of England and Scotland throws such interesting side lights on political history, it is also of special interest with regard to the economic life of both countries. Since the time of Edward I the industrial and commercial progress of the two nations had proceeded on distinct lines; when the two were brought into contact, we can see more clearly how far the institutions of the two peoples differed, and learn to contrast the working and policy of each with greater precision. Scotland was on the whole a more backward country, and was certainly much less flourishing than England; but so far as her commercial institutions were concerned, it may be said that Scotland was in some ways the more advanced of the two. The Elizabethan and Stuart period in England is marked by the superseding of municipal exclusiveness, and the introduction of a system of national economy. In Scotland municipal supervision of the products of industry continued to be practised till the nineteenth century; but so far as commerce is concerned, Scotland had long enjoyed the means of regulating it on national lines, in the Convention of the Royal Burghs. The combined trading in regulated companies, which was such a characteristic feature of English commerce, had never become an established Scots practice; Scotland moved from medieval to modern trade organisation without passing through this transitional form. The exclusive status of the merchant was not carefully maintained, so far as Scots merchants, in foreign parts, were concerned: common sailors and others were accustomed to do a little trading on their own account at the ports they visited; and Scots pedlars found openings in the internal trade of foreign countries. From the point of view of the English Merchant Companies, the Scots were a nation of interlopers; and it seems probable that they played a considerable part in connection with the successive attacks which went on throughout the seventeenth century, both at home and abroad, on the exclusive privileges of the Regulated Companies. Scots commerce, like Scots banking in the eighteenth century, offered to self-reliant young men, opportunities which were not so generally available for those born south of the Tweed.

Miss Keith has been fortunate in choosing a subject which is of so much interest both in regard to political and to economic history; and she is to be congratulated on her success in dealing with a mass of material in such a fashion as to bring out the far-reaching importance of the details to which she has given so much care and thought.

W. CUNNINGHAM.
July 1910.

CONTENTS

Introduction

I. Union of 1603.

a. Condition of Trade at the Time of the Union

Commodities imported and exported, Organisation of trade, Trade with France, Low Countries, Baltic, Spain, England..

b. Negotiations for Commercial Union

Desire of James for Union, Clauses of Union treaty dealing with commerce, English opposition, Scottish privileges in France, Answers to English objections, Results of negotiations, Restrictions on trade between England and Scotland, 1613-40.