Neighbour country, Holland: an ideal model to follow, or just an enemy?
Seiichiro Ito
(Ohtsuki City College, Japan)
Abstract
In the seventeenth century, particularly in its first half, the English
pamphleteers often argued that the English should learn the manner of
herring fishing from the Dutch and it is essential for the success of the
English trade. While they tended to focus on the technical aspects of fishing
business, around mid-century some pamphleteers showed their interest in
the Dutch society as a whole. They shared the list of their merits to learn
from the Dutch model, such as the management of trade, low customs, low
interest rates, and banking. Over the Navigation Act of 1651, some were
supportive and some were against, but both sides shared the same images of
Holland. From around 1670 the styles of the discourses of the pamphleteers
who discuss trade also changed. They got more analytical and systematic.
Roger Coke was an example.
Introduction
In 1651 where England was stepping into the way to the war with the Dutch,
Thomas Hobbes was also one of those who had a complex feeling against
them. Hobbes expresses it as follows:
‘I doubt not, but many men, have been contented to see the late troubles in
England, out of an imitation of the Low Countries; supposing there needed
no more to grow rich, than to change, as they had done, the forme of their
Government.’ (Hobbes, Leviathan, 1991, p. 225.)
Hobbes here shows one of reasons why the Common-wealth would lead to its
dissolution. The example of the government of a neighbour country
‘disposeth men to alteration of the forme already setled’, just as false
doctrines do. The human nature of desiring ‘novelty’ is undeniable and the
1
people ‘love the first beginnings’ of disorder (Hobbes, Leviathan, 1991, p.
225.). In Behemoth, Hobbes more directly connects his concern about the
imitation of the Low Countries to the historical context. He takes the
admiration of the prosperity of the Low Countries as the cause of the
disorder between 1640 to 1660 in England. Hobbes infers that the success
of the revolt in the Low Countries against the king of Spain drove the
English to think that ‘the like change of government here, would to them
produce the like prosperity.’ (Hobbes, ‘Behemoth’ inWorks, 1840, p. 168)
This description of the political atmosphere of England in the
mid-seventeenth century could be exactly applied for the situation of the
English trade which had to survive in the economic and political balance of
power in Europe.
In the first half of the century quite a few pamphleteers who mostly are
merchants and fishermen wrote that the Dutch trade was thriving because
of herring-fishing business and it was superior to those of other European
countries. Since in 1601 John Keymer, a vintner, addressed a manuscript
to Elizabeth I, a lot of pamphlets on fishing-business had been written and
published. They all shared the arguments that the Dutch catch fish on the
British seas; that they are industrious; that therefore, if the English become
industrious, they can beat out the Dutch trade1. However, while in the first
half of the century pamphleteers stuck on the technical matters of this
business, after the Interregnum a larger picture of the Dutch economy and
society began to attract their attentions. In the following I try to describe
what sort of pictures of the Dutch society the English illustrated.
1.
When Sir Roger L’Estrange published A discourse of the fishery in 1674, the
direct sources of his knowledge about fishing business were Sir Walter
Raleigh and Sir John Borough2, which, though the author himself does not
See S. Ito, ‘What should the English learn from the Dutch?’, The 18h
Annual Conference of the European Society for the History of Economic
Thought, Université de Lausanne, Centre Walras-Pareto, Lausanne,
Switzerland, 29th May, 2014.
2 L’Estrange says, ‘Let it not be Imagin’d that I speak all this without book,
for I have my Calculation of the profit of it, and other advantages, from Sir
1
2
mention the title of the book, obviously are Raleigh’s Observations, touching
trade & commerce with the Hollander, and other nations published in 1653,
which is originally John Keymer’s manuscript written in 1620, and
Borough’s The soveraignty of the British seas published in 1651, though
Borough claims that he wrote it in 1633. Both Keymer and Borough highly
estimated the Dutch fishing trade and insisted that the English need to
emulate it. However, when The soveraignty of the British seas was
published in 16513, the political and economic situation was totally changed
from that of Keymer. It was not a coincidence that this pamphlet was
published in this year, the year waiting a war.
Borough starts the discourse with a Hobbesian argument concerning the
sovereignty of the sea: ‘That Princes may have an exclusive property in the
Soveraigntie of the severall parts of the Sea, and in the passage, fishing &
shores therof’, he insists, ‘is so evidently true by way of fact, as no man that
is not desperately impudent can deny it.’ (Borough, The sovereignty, 1651, p.
1.) According to Borough, the necessity of commerce and its safety made
people learn from their maritime practices and ‘by the light of humane
reason’ that laws are requisite for the ‘preservation’ of seamen and that to
make such laws and to execute them must ‘require a supreame authority’
(Borough, The sovereignty, 1651, pp. 2-3.).
In the first half of his long tract Borough repeats his argument that the
British Seas had exclusively belonged to the English kings, tracing the cases
of each reign. Borough concludes that the common law made the king the
‘proprietory Lord’ of the British Seas and even the ‘things floating on the
superficies of the water’ belong to the king (Borough, The sovereignty, 1651,
p. 105.).
Borough says, the coasts of Great Britain yield a ‘Sea-harvest’ through a
year and produce employments for people concerning fishing’ (Borough, The
sovereignty, 1651, pp. 108-9.) Fishing of herring, cod and ling is done
Walter Rawleigh, Sr John Burrowes, and many other learned, and
Experienced Athors’ . L’Estrange, 1674, p. 9.
3 Borough, John, Sir, The soveraignty of the British seas : proved by records,
history, and the municipall lawes of this kingdome written in the yeare 1633
by ... Sr John Boroughs. London, 1651. The title says that this was
‘[p]rinted for Humphrey Moseley, and are to be sold at his shop, 1651.’
3
somewhere of the British coasts through a year (Borough, The sovereignty,
1651, p. 109.). However, those who gain from this ‘wonderfull affluence,
and abundance of fish swarming’ in the British seas are not the English, but
Hollanders. Then Borough felt it necessary to show the picture of the truth
(Borough, The sovereignty, 1651, p. 115.).
Thanks to the richness of the British Seas the Hollanders improved
shipping, mariners, trade, towns and fortifications, power at abroad, public
revenue, private wealth, provisions and necessary things (Borough, The
sovereignty, 1651, pp. 116-7.).
Borough presents the details of those profits, which are logically connected
each other. First, the Dutch use various types of ships not only to fish but
also to ‘fetch salt’ and to ‘carry their fish into other countries’. Furthermore
those ships create the employment of fishers, tradesmen, women, and
children (Borough, The sovereignty, 1651, pp. 117-8.). Borough reveals that,
beside 300 ships fishing on their own shores, the Dutch have at least 4800
ships ‘onely maintained by seas of Great Brittaine’, by which means Holland,
‘being so bigge as one of our shires of England’, increased the number of their
shipping to at least 10,000, ‘being more then are in England’ and other
European counties (Borough, The sovereignty, 1651, pp. 121-2.). Borough
adds the cases of Lubeck, Hamburg, and Emden whose ships are employed
and maintained by fishing upon the British coast (Borough, The sovereignty,
1651, pp. 122-3.).
Secondly, Borough calculates that, as there are 8400 ships for fishing and
each ship needs 20 people, the total number of mariners and fishers amounts
to 16800, who are skilled and well instructed in navigation (Borough, The
sovereignty, 1651, pp. 124-5.). Thirdly, this multitude of ships and
mariners extended the Dutch trade to the world, exporting their herring and
other fish and bringing back foreign commodities. However, Borough
regarded as the English ‘shame’ this situation that the Dutch sell the fish
‘taken upon our [British] coast’ to the English (Borough, The sovereignty,
1651, pp. 125-9.)4.
Fourthly, greatly extended Dutch trade makes them the ‘citizens of the
An anonymous pamphlet published in 1662 also mentions the same sort of
‘Shame’. Anonymous, Ἰχθυοθηρα, or, the Royal Trade of Fishing. London,
1662. , p. 9.
4
4
whole world’ and enlarge towns and their fortifications (Borough, The
sovereignty, 1651, pp. 129-31.). Summarising the above-mentioned causal
relationship of fishing trade, the number of ships and mariners, and the
internal strengthening to protect themselves from foreign invasions as from
Spain, Borough next assures that the Dutch ‘have stretched their power into
the East, and West Indies’ (Borough, The sovereignty, 1651, p. 132.) and now
they become ‘the most redoubted Nation at Sea’ (Borough, The sovereignty,
1651, p. 133.).
Sixthly, fishing makes the increase of public revenue by customs. In
addition, Borough mentions that the fish taken by the Dutch are sold abroad
in exchange of ‘the finest’ gold and silver with which they produce coins ‘of a
baser ally under their owne stampe’ (Borough, The sovereignty, 1651, pp.
134-6.). Seventhly, Borough reasons that the private wealth of the Dutch
must be ‘exceeding great’ (Borough, The sovereignty, 1651, p. 137.). Besides,
the trade of fishing creates the employments in almost infinite types of
occupations and maintains their families (Borough, The sovereignty, 1651,
pp. 136-42). Lastly, it is manifest that though Holland only produces ‘some
few hops, Madders, butter and cheese’, it abounds in all kinds of provisions
‘for life’, such as corn, beef, muttons, hides, and cloths, ‘for luxurie’, such as
wines, silks, and spices, and ‘for defence’, such as pitch, tar, cordage, and
timber (Borough, The sovereignty, 1651, pp. 142-3)5.
According to these analyses of the advantages of the Dutch trade, Borough
maintains, it is ‘the ignominie, and shame of our English Nation’ that in
spite of the richness of their natural products the English neglect their
benefit ‘paying money to strangers for the fish of our[English] owne Seas’
(Borough, The sovereignty, 1651, pp. 144). Then Borough shows his
observations how England can easily repair the ‘decaied townes’ by making
use of ‘so great a blessing’ (Borough, The sovereignty, 1651, pp. 145).
Keymer also takes hops, madders, and cheese as the examples of the Dutch
national products in the context where the almost same argument is done:
‘The return of Marchandize, Wares and Coyn, for Herrings and other Fish
(out of other Countries) is so great, that it maketh the Banck for Coyn, and
Staple for all kind of Merchandize in Holland, where nothing groweth but a
few Hoppes, Mader, and Cheese’. Keymor, J., John Keymors observation
made upon the Dutch fishing about the year 1601, 1664, p. 4.
5
5
Building busses will make employments for ship-builders, fisher men, and
mariners ‘at Sea’, and consequently for tradesmen and labourers ‘at land’.
The herrings taken by these busses will bring customs. The English have
sufficient timber for building busses and plenty of victuals. The shores and
harbours are near the places for fishing. The English will bring fish to land,
salt, and pack it and go to France, Spain, or Italy ‘before the Hollanders can
arrive in Holland.’ They transport fish into northern countries ‘where the
Hollanders seldom or never come.’ Lastly, the English may easily be expert
in the art of fishing which they gained from the Flemings (Borough, The
sovereignty, 1651, pp. 145-50).
Next, Borough enumerates the factors which hinder those merits of the
English trade. First, in England the statute to observe ‘Fish dayes’ causes
the scarcity of fish. They need the ‘Generall liberty of eating flesh contrary
to old custome’ (Borough, The sovereignty, 1651, p. 151). Secondly, England
has no order in fishing, everybody being ‘permitted to fish as best liketh him’,
while in Holland ‘two of the best experienced Fishermen are appointed to
guide the rest of the fleete’ (Borough, The sovereignty, 1651, pp. 151-2).
Thirdly, the Hollanders and other nations dwell with their busses on the
shoal to fish from June to November, while the English stay just for seven
weeks (Borough, The sovereignty, 1651, pp. 152-3). Forthly, the Hollanders
have strong busses which are ‘able to brooke foule weather’, while the
English boats are small and thin, and therefore ‘not daring to adventure far’
(Borough, The sovereignty, 1651, pp. 153-4). Fifthly, the Hollanders are
industrious, whereas the English never return to the sea ‘all the money
taken for their fish be spent’ (Borough, The sovereignty, 1651, p. 154).
Lastly, the Hollanders have merchants to come to the sea where the busses
dwell and lade their herring, so the fishermen can continue fishing without
returning to the coasts, while the English are ‘forced to spend much time in
putting off their fish by parcells.’ (Borough, The sovereignty, 1651, pp. 155-6)
It is notable that the third and fifth points had also been mentioned in
Keymer’s petition in 16016.
While Borough’s analysis of fishing trade was on the tradition of the
discussion since Keymer, it should not be forgotten that in the year of 1651
the Navigation Acts changed the context.
In this year a pamphlet, entitled The advocate: or, a narrative of the state
6
See Keymors, 1664[1601], pp. 9-10.
6
and condition of things between the English and Dutch Nation, in relation to
Trade, was published7 . Its introductory paragraph briefly describes the
ongoing shift of the European power-balance at this time. According to the
author calling himself ‘Philopatris’, while it had been thought for long time
that ‘the Design of Spain’ was ‘to get the Universal Monarchie of
Christendom’, it is the case of his days that the Dutch had ‘aimed to laie a
foundation to themselves for ingrossing the Universal Trade’ not only of
Christendom but also of all of the world ([Worsley], Advocate, 1651, p. 1) and
that it was possible not by ‘the Largeness of their Countrie’ but by ‘the
Greatness of their Wealth’ which was based on the strength and multitude of
their shipping. ([Worsley], Advocate, 1651, p. 2) The author goes on to
discuss in order. First, he lists up the advantages the Dutch have over the
English: the trade to the Baltick Sea; herring-fishing; manufactures; the
East-India trade. The author then argues that the means by which those
advantages are realised are ‘the great number of Shipping they have
constantly built’ and ‘the manner of managing their Trade and Shipping’
([Worsley], Advocate, 1651, p. 3). Few Dutch merchant’s ships carried guns
and their fleets attend with a convoy ‘at publick Charge’ so that they could
concentrate on their business ([Worsley], Advocate, 1651, p. 3).
Consequently, they could ‘engross the whole Trade of all Bulkie
Commodities’ such as timber, clapboard, masts, grain, and salt and could go
cheap for freight. This cheapness of freight attracted the markets,
undersold the English, and ‘Compelled out Nation ... to hire and freight the
Holland shipping, without which, indeed, wee could not well have held up a
Trade here with them, either out or home’ ([Worsley], Advocate, 1651, p. 4).
This resulted in ‘several very great mischeifs’ to England: this encouraged
the Dutch shipping and discouraged the English; this increased the Dutch
trade to the Baltic Sea; the English must have hired the Dutch mariners
Philopatris. The advocate: or, a narrative of the state and condition of
things between the English and Dutch Nation, in relation to Trade, and the
consequences depending thereupon, to either Common-wealth; as it was
presented in August 1651. London, 1651. Leng attributes this work to
Benjamin Worsley. Leng, T.. Benjamin Worsley (1618-1677): trade, interest
and the spirit in revolutionary England. Woodbridge: The Boydell Press,
2008, p. 75.
7
7
instead of the English; the English spent more money on luxuries, while the
English seamen ‘starved’ due to ‘lack of imploiment’; because of the
cheapness of their freight the Dutch could ‘over-bid’ the English merchant at
the foreign markets ([Worsley], Advocate, 1651, pp. 4-6). All these affairs
ended in increasing the Dutch stock and ‘answerably’ diminishing the
English. And then, in trade of East-land, plantations, India, and Spain the
Dutch sails outdid the English ([Worsley], Advocate, 1651, pp. 6-7).
The comparison between England and Holland was the consistent issue
throughout Advocate.
Beside shipping, the author adds some more
advantages of the Dutch over the English: the Dutch dominance over the
exchange and foreign markets with their great stock; ‘the Credit’ of their
commodities produced by their manufactures, ‘By which they keep up the
Repute and Sale of them abroad’ ([Worsley], Advocate, 1651, p. 7); the
treaties with other countries to take care and protection of trade abroad; low
customs and ‘their prudent’ impositions ([Worsley], Advocate, 1651, p. 9); the
reward and encouragement to inventions and new discoveries which are ‘a
very great spur to Industrie’ ([Worsley], Advocate, 1651, p. 10).
In addition, interestingly, the author lists up three ‘less principal and
accessarie’ causes of the Dutch advantages, which are low interest rates,
banking, and gavelkind ([Worsley], Advocate, 1651, p. 10). These three
topics are all included in fifteen items which Josiah Child listed as what the
English should learn from the Dutch. However, here they are ranked as
‘less principal’, while at the time of Child interest rates and banking are
considered major measures for the improvement of the society8.
The author also presents ‘certain general Canons or Rules belonging to
Manufactures’. He uses the terms of economics with which he gives a more
See Child, Sir J., Brief observations concerning trade and interest of money,
London, 1668. Concerning the interest rate controversy after 1668, see S.
Ito, ‘Interest controversy in its context’、 The 14th Annual Conference of the
European Society for the History of Economic Thought、The Amsterdam
8
School of Economics at the University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The
Netherlands, 26 March 2010; S. Ito, ‘Interest Controversy, the second round’,
The 16th Annual Conference of the European Society for the History of
Economic Thought、Saint Petersburg State University, Saint-Petersburg,
Russia, 17 May 2012.
8
abstractive and analytical framework than the forerunning economic
pamphlets. First, while ‘natural Commodities’ are found in different places,
manufacture or ‘artificial Commoditie’ can be ‘transplanted’ anywhere.
Secondly, all manufactures are ‘of a certain value and price’ if they are ‘of a
certain goodness’. Thirdly, the cheapest commodities are preferred at
market. Fourthly, ‘the Cheapness’ of commodities depends on ‘the plenty
and cheapness of the matter’ ([Worsley], Advocate, 1651, pp. 7-8).
According to the author, while the English lack the care to them, the Dutch
understand these ‘unalterable Laws’ of manufactures. The reason of the
Dutch dominance in trade is not their ‘singular Industrie’ but ‘the
Carelesness’ or ‘Neglect’ of the English ‘in settling a Regulation, Government,
and Superspection’ over their manufactures. This is the cause of the
success of the Dutch woollen manufactures and also of the ruin and decay of
the English ([Worsley], Advocate, 1651, p. 9). It should be noticed that this
idea of the care to manufacture would lead to the trade policy such as the
Navigation Acts.
Answering the expected criticism the author summarises his ideas: it is by
‘due ordering and governing’ of trade that wealth and shipping can be
increased and upheld; it is by ‘a Knowledg’ of trade that ‘one Nation or State
knows perfectly how to straighten and pinch another’. These principles will
be put into practice by ‘debarring or deriving’ the course of necessary goods
for war and shipping from rival countries, by ‘obstructing the Sale or Vent of
the Native Commodities belonging to them’, and by weakening their
shipping and draining them of coin ([Worsley], Advocate, 1651, p. 12). This
is the idea of the Navigation Acts. At the end, clarifying his standpoint, the
author insists that, if these rules of trade are duly considered, ‘little will
remain of Dis-satisfaction (or Objection upon us) about the PARLAMENT’s
late Act for the Incouragement and Increas of our Navigation’ ([Worsley],
Advocate, 1651, p. 14).
In a pamphlet entitled Free ports published also in the same year 9 ,
Worsley argues that, if ports for storing foreign commodities and exporting
them ‘upon such easie Duties, as wee may hold the Market in all other
Countries with our Neighbors the Hollanders’ are opened in the appropriate
places in England, the English trade would thrive (B. W., Free ports, 1651, p.
3) Free ports would increase the power of the nation, ‘both by Land and by
9
B. W. Free ports, and the nature of them stated. London, 1651.
9
Sea: as well in Guarding and plentifully planting and peopling those
maritime or frontier-Towns’ (B. W., Free ports, 1651, p. 4).
Worsley enumerates the benefits brought by free ports. Opening free
ports will conduce to ‘the Quickning of Trade’, the employment of the poor,
the cheapness and the plenty of the foreign commodities, the re-export of the
commodities which could not have found market, the prevention of famine,
the rise of the exchange rate and the inflow of bullion, the increase of the
public revenue, and the dependence of the other nations upon England (B.
W., Free ports, 1651, p. 4).
Next, the advantages that England has above Holland are enumerated:
the largeness of the domions and the number of the ports; the plenty of
commodities from England and its plantation; the freedom the English have
upon the foreign port; the good condition of the English ports in comparison
with Holland; and, lastly, the safety of the coasts and excellent roadsteads in
England (B. W., Free ports, 1651, pp. 4-5).
In addition Worsley also examines ‘the Inconveniencies’ the English trade
has and ‘the Damages’ England will suffer if the current situation of their
trade continues. He is concerned that the English trade is ‘onely for
Consumption’ and that the foreign commodities are rarely ‘re-transported’.
Worsley concludes, if free ports are opened and exportation of foreign goods
are encouraged, the lowness of exchange rates will be prevented, ‘our Stock
and Shipping will bee indefinitely increased’, and the revenue from customs
will increase (B. W., Free ports, 1651, pp. 7-8)
Though Advocate and Free ports are published in the same year and
attributed to the same author by Leng, the tones and contents of the
arguments are different. While the former showed the clearly supportive
attitude toward the Navigation Act in 1651, the latter focuses on free-port
policy avoiding the direct mention of the Act. Their lists of the advantages
and disadvantages of trade do not necessarily seem to fit together.
Advocate supplies the more widely ranged issues which expect the projects of
the social improvement which would be supplied by J. Child and others
almost two decades later. However, it certainly was the Dutch that both
pamphlets regarded as the indisputable rival of the English.
2.
10
In 1665, the year the second Anglo-Dutch war began, an anonymous
pamphlet, entitled An Exact survey of the affaires of the United Netherlands,
was published10. This also takes over the issues and arguments from the
previous discussions.
According to the author, though the British coasts are ‘exceedingly
productive’ of fish, such as ling, cod, herrings, and pilchards, ‘vast quantities’
of them are taken by the Dutch (An exact survey 1665, p. 109). To
demonstrate the cause of the ‘present strength and mightiness’ of the Dutch,
the author lists up the advantages the Dutch have by fishing on the British
coasts, following the observation of Sir John Borough in his ‘a small Tract’
written in 1633 (An exact survey 1665, p. 110), that is, The soveraignty of the
British seas which was published in 165111.
While Burough lists up eight heads, such as ‘Encrease of Shipping’,
‘Encrease of Marriners’, ‘Encrease of Trade’, ‘Encrease of Townes and Fortes’,
‘Encrease of power abroad’, ‘Encrease of publique revenew’, ‘Encrease of
private wealth’, ‘Encrease of provision’ (Burough 1651, p. 116-), An exact
survey offers seven, which is ‘1. Increase of Shipping and seamen. 2.
Traffique. 3. Strond Holds, and Fortifications. 4. Power abroad. 5. Publick
Revenue. 6. Private, or particular Estates. 7. Provisions, and store of all
things conducing either to their Subsistance or Greatness.’ (An exact survey
1665, p. 110)
While Burough’s explanations are sprinkled with detailed data under
eight topics, An exact survey makes them sharp and clears the points with
the renewed information. The first two articles of Burough concerning
shipping and mariners being combined, An exact survey gives seven heads.
Firstly, though the country is small and has ‘nothing considerable’ of natural
products, Holland maintains 3000 vessels for fishing on their coast and 7 or 8
thousand ships for fishing on the English coast. Thereby 140,000 fishermen
and mariners are set at work. Besides thousands of tradesmen, women and
children depending on fishing and shipping are also employed (An exact
An anonymous pamphlet, entitled An Exact survey of the affaires of the
United Netherlands : comprehending more fully than any other thing yet
extant, all the particulars of that subject : in twelve heads, mentioned in the
address to the reader, was published. London, 1665.
11 As we have seen above, this tract was claimed by Borough himself to have
been written in 1633.
10
11
survey 1665, pp. 110-1). Secondly, the Dutch cannot survive without
‘trading Voyages throughout the whole World’ (An exact survey 1665, p. 111).
The ‘shame’ of the English people, which Borough pointed out (Borough, The
sovereignty, 1643, p. 128.), are presented in a more analytical way. The
Dutch not only get foreign commodities in exchange for fish they caught on
the English coasts but also carry ‘no small summe of money’ out of England.
On the other hand, though England is full of natural products, it ‘neglect[s]
the benefit’ of them ‘for want of Industry’. The English pay money to their
‘dangerous Neighbours’ for the fish of the English Seas (An exact survey
1665, pp. 111-2). Thirdly, by ‘their greatness of Trade’ the Dutch cities and
towns are ‘exceedingly populated’, ‘much enlarged’, ‘beautified’ in the
buildings, and ‘(as all great moneyed mens houses) strongly fortifyed’. As it
was in Borough, here also Leyden, Middleburgh, and Amsterdam were taken
as the examples of such towns (An exact survey 1665, pp. 112-3). Fourthly,
the Dutch ‘strengthen themselves’ not only at home, but, having a great
number of ships and mariners, they also extend their power to the
East-Indies. Therefore they are conceived as ‘considerable’ (An exact
survey 1665, p. 113).
Fifthly, fishing trade increases the public revenue. While Borough
referred to the gold and silver which the Dutch gained by selling fish abroad
and helped increasing the public revenue by making baser coins, An exact
survey does not touch to this point (An exact survey 1665, p. 114). Sixthly,
such a large-scale trade makes private men rich and wealthy and increases
all sorts of employment. While Borough did not referred to the employment
of the poor, An exact survey mentions that ‘all sorts of poor people’, such as
the impotent, the lame, the blind, and the old and young, are set at work and
that therefore it is rare to see a beggar in Holland (An exact survey 1665, pp.
114-5). Lastly, though the Hollanders have little in their own country, ‘in
return for their fish’ they furnish themselves with all sorts of provisions for
life, luxury, and defence (An exact survey 1665, p. 115). Here cannot be
found any more the examples of hops, madders, and cheese as the domestic
products of Holland, which Keymer and Borough listed12.
Given these analyses of the Dutch economy, the conclusive message of An
exact survey was in contrast with Borough’s. While Borough concludes that
the Dutch owe the success of their trade to ‘the ignominie, and shame’ of the
12
See Borough, The sovereignty, 1643, p. 142; Keymors, 1664[1601], p. 4.
12
English (Borough, The sovereignty, 1651, pp. 144), An exact survey ends up
with emphasising ‘the sullen perverseness’ of the Dutch people and ‘their
ingratitude to their best frends’, who are the people of Great Britain (An
exact survey 1665, p. 116).
In the description of the political and economical situations of each
province of the United Provinces and their relationships with the other
European countries, An exact survey shows a critical attitude towards the
Dutch. It tries to demonstrate that the Dutch lack integrity and reputation
and that they exploit England for their national interests. For example, the
author urges the readers to remind ‘their dealings with England’: ‘how they
solicited our Queen, and yet dealt with the French King: How they promised
us free Trade, yet stopped our ships: How they borrowed our money, to buy a
peace with Spain’ (An exact survey 1665, p. 139).
An exact survey offers a particular section for the report on the ‘Dutch
present Condition in reference to Money and Treasure’, in which it presents
ten plus one characters of the Dutch economy: their rivers running through
the country and conveying the wealth of Germany, Britain, and the
Mediterranean Sea; excise; the coin hoarded in banks; free trade;
encouraging merchants and artisans by exemption from tax and by taking
care of expert merchants and artisans not to ‘go out of their Dominions’;
people’s ‘concernment’ in public matters; committing accounts to
‘Merchant-commissioners’; the ‘fundamental constitution for a yearly
estimate of all Estates and Persons’ [= registration of estates]; industry; the
‘humour’ to maintain their liberty; public banks (An exact survey 1665, pp.
151-3). This list shares the same topics as those of J. Child or others
concerning what the English should learn from Holland13.
The author illustrates the ‘condition’ of the Dutch government with cynical
terms. ‘While a Monarch acts, these great Councils debate’, the Survey
briefly put (An exact survey 1665, p. 158). In the United Provinces each
state pretends to ‘an equal Power’; ‘[p]articular Piques and Animosities shall
hazard a Publick Interest, and some great ones will chuse to betray the
State’; there are ‘disorders’ (An exact survey 1665, pp. 158-9). According to
the Survey, the process of decision-making took long time and private
See Child, Sir J., Brief observations; Ito, ‘Interest controversy’; Ito,
‘Interest Controversy, the second round’. Also compare this with the list of
Advaocate I mentioned above.
13
13
interests and factions thrived there. Under ‘so many divided Heads’, the
author wonders ‘how they maintain a War’ (An exact survey 1665, pp. 164-5).
Concerning religion the Survey reports that ‘the Dutch have never been
esteemed really devout’ (An exact survey 1665, p. 165) and concludes that
they have lost their Interest in point of Religion.’ (An exact survey 1665, p.
170)
As to military preparation the relative weakness of the Dutch
land-forces and the strength at sea are contrasted (An exact survey 1665, pp.
178-83)
An exact survey shows interest in the properly political ideology. It refers
to Rhoan, who is introduced as ‘writing of the Interest of the States of
Europe’ (An exact survey 1665, p. 189). This Survey enumerates Rhoan’s
‘peculiar concerns of the United Provinces’, such as a ‘firm League with
England for trade, and a Confederacy against Spain’, a ‘good correspondence’
with the princes of the Mediterranean and the Baltic Sea, a ‘quiet and easie
Government’, free trade, a care not to make the inequality of richness among
cities or provinces, a ‘quickness to observe’ the neighbour-princes’
pretensions (An exact survey 1665, pp. 189-90). The Survey also adds five
points, ‘for which Cardinal Bentivoglio presaged the downfall of this
Republick’: liberty tending to become licentiousness; inequality; too much
trust in general officers; their intolerable expences; other provinces’ jealousy
for Holland (An exact survey 1665, p. 190).
However, on the other hand, the Survey also reveals the positive aspects
that have been ‘formerly advanced’ in the Netherlands: excise; piracy; the
check on the Austrian power; low-cost shipping; the engrossment of the coin
of Europe; free trade ‘allowed in England Denmark, and Muscovy’; the
Protestant allies with England; employing the poor; ‘Lombards, or Loan
houses, where the poor have money upon any pawn for a Reasonable Rate’,
that is six percent; their diet; spending money (‘but now their time in
drinking’); the traffic of ‘others superfluities, but not their own’; ‘plain’
appearance and realistic ambition; ‘strictly executed’ laws; no usury; no
idleness and no thievery; tenth of what a man gained ‘extraordinarily by
money’ for welfare; people’s engagement in public affaires; industry and
frugality; men’s readiness to be soldiers; hardiness and headstrongness;
being ‘seldom deceived’; love for profitability; their religion and liberty, ‘of
both which they were very zealous formerly, and are as careless now’; the
eastern trade in the north regions and the trade with England in the east;
14
the well-disciplined army (An exact survey 1665, pp. 193-7).
After these detailed analysis of the United Provinces the Survey concludes
that it is evident that war ‘is become necessary to us, since equity is denyed;
and that we must put our affairs to the order of force, when they dare not
come to the Test of the Law.’ (An exact survey 1665, p. 208)
3.
In 1670, right after the second Anglo-Dutch war, an well-educated political
writer, Roger Coke published a pamphlet, entitled A discourse of trade,14
which is a quite different type from those of the previous generations. It
was intended to be rigidly theoretical and analytical, definitely not polemical.
In the dedicatory words Coke explicitly presents his own methodology. He
claims that it is the same as that of ‘Geometry, Numbers, Divinity, Physick,
and Natural Philosophy’ (Coke 1670, Dedicatory p. 1). This makes a good
contrast with Tobias Gentleman who wrote a pamphlet on fishing trade,
Englands way to win wealth, a half century before and introduced himself as
‘borne a Fishermans sonne by the Sea-side’ and being ‘more skillfull in Nets,
Lines, and Hookes, then in Rethoricke, Logicke, or learned books’
(Gentleman 1614, pp. 2-3). His method is first to ‘establish the principles’,
and then ‘by a certain rule to reason under them.’ The principles from
which all reasoning is generated are definitions, petitions, and axioms (Coke
1670, The Epistle Dedicatory p. 1). Coke, in fact, follows this method in his
discourse on trade.
According to Coke, all things God made were ‘prepared by Humane Art
and Industry’. Therefore men have to live helping each other, in other
words, they need trade (Coke 1670, Preface p. 1). Trade is now more
‘courted and Celebrated’ than any other age. It dominates the world not by
‘the Horrid and Rueful face of Warr’, which leaves misery, devastation, and
poverty, but by wealth and plenty, which, as a result, brings the power to
defend itself. Coke takes as an example the Dutch case, which confronted
the power of Spain by the financial support induced from trade (Coke 1670,
Coke, R., A discourse of trade, in two parts : the first treats of the reason of
the decay of the strength, wealth, and trade of England, the latter of the
growth and increase of the Dutch trade above the English. London, 1670.
14
15
Preface p. 2). That import is more than export is, Coke argues, not the
reason for the decay of trade. In fact, the Dutch ‘Import all’ but they thrive
on trade; on the other hand, the Irish export much more than they import
but they grow poorer (Coke 1670, Preface p. 4).
Coke starts, as his methodology claims, with definitions. First, he defines
trade as ‘an Art of Getting, Preparing, and Exchanging things Commodious
for Humane Necessities and Convenience’ and, next, money as the standard
to value things and navigation as an art of conveying things. Then he also
defines other terms such as the Dutch, the English, a Dutch merchant, an
English merchant, the Dutch states, the council of state in England, and
corporations in trade (Coke 1670, pp. 1-2). These choices of the terms to be
defined which come in the opening of the discourse suggests what the issues
are here.
Next, on the basis of those definitions Coke presents ‘Petitions’. In the
first three petitions are concerning the relations of trade between England,
Holland, and France. The first one is that the Dutch grant all nations
‘equal Priviledges with the Natural Dutch’. Petition 3 argues, referring to
Samuel Fortrey’s Englands interest and improvement (1663) as the source of
information, that the import of the French commodities into England
exceeds the exportation from England to France (Coke 1670, pp. 2-3). In
petition 4, with the help of Sir Walter Raleigh, Coke insists on the higher
potential of the English manufacture and fishing trade than the Dutch (Coke
1670, pp. 3-4). In petitions 5 to 8 Coke shows his general image of trade,
which has been called ‘mercantilist’ by modern historians: money is
convenient for trade; foreign trade is ‘the only mean’ to enrich the country; a
large population advances trade (Coke 1670, pp. 4-5). Petition 9 is that the
law against naturalization does not permit immigrants equal freedom and
privilege with the native English.
The ensuing petitions are all concerning the Navigation Acts and they are
all logically connected: the act of navigation entitled ‘Shipping and
Navigation Encouraged’ restrains the English navigation to English built
ships; stock advances trade; men are necessary to improve trade; timber is
necessary for ship-building; ships are necessary for navigation; before the
above-mentioned act of navigation the timber was wanting and therefore
also shipping was so; due to the act of navigation the loss and decay of
shipping must not be supplied by acquiring foreign built ships. Coke
16
presents also the petitions which show the situations of the English trade:
navigation is the only mean of exportation to the foreign countries except
Scotland; the act against importation of Irish cattle made the English trade
decline (Coke 1670, pp. 5-6).
Population did matter to Coke so as to his contemporaries. Applying the
‘Common Notions’, such as that ‘[i]f the means of doing any thing be wanting,
that thing will be so much hindred, as the means are diminished’ (Coke 1670,
p. 6), to England at his time, he presents a theorem: because men are
necessary to improve trade (petition 24), depopulation caused by emigration
to American plantations, ‘Repeopling Ireland’, and the plague in 1665 led to
diminishing trade of England and their fishing trade (Coke 1670, p. 7).
Coke asserts that the law against naturalization leads ‘all necessitous and
ingenuous men’ to run to Ireland and the plantations. (Coke 1670, p. 10) He
makes reference to the case of Spain, which became weaker by transporting
people into the West-Indies and the Inquisition.
Spain, at home,
maintained war ‘without any success’ for nearly twenty years (Coke 1670, p.
11) and their plantations in West-Indies being ‘thinly planted’ had not gain
enough benefit (Coke 1670, p. 12).
And then Coke compares the state of England with that of Spain. First,
Ireland and the English plantations did ‘more exhaust’ England of people
than the West-Indies do Spain. Secondly, the massacre in Ireland, the ‘late’
plague, and their civil and foreign wars made population less. Lastly, the
law against naturalisation is ‘a greater Bar’ than the Spanish Inquisition
was (Coke 1670, p. 12)
Coke does not ‘dispute’ the authority of laws. He just argues that if ‘the
end designed’ by laws are ‘not attained’, they should be expired (Coke 1670, p.
17). Besides Coke presents a case that people should observe a law. A
statute at the time of the king Edward that estates in tail should remain to
the donee and his heirs (Coke 1670, p. 18) is a good example to be observed.
However, Coke was ‘sure’ that the law is ‘violated’ and that ‘all that mony
which is expended in Buying and Morgaging such Lands, is diverted from
the good use by which it might be imployed in Trade’. While solicitors,
bankers, usurers, and scriveners become ‘vastly rich’, trade becomes ‘starved
and neglected’ and, as a result, the nation poorer (Coke 1670, p. 19). Coke
suggests how the kingdom might become rich if the statute above mentioned
were observed: solicitors, bankers, scriveners, and usurers, ‘who now swarm
17
more than ever, and devour all the good of the Nation, but no ways do any
good to it, would diminish’; more stock would be employed in beneficial
trades; people would be more intent to improve their estates ‘when they
know what they must betake themselves to’ than ‘when they are engaged in
Law Suits about Morgages and Titles of Land.’ Then Coke assures that the
wealth brought by trade will be continually employed in trade ‘as well as in
the United Netherland’ and interest rates will fall ‘as low, as in the United
Netherlands.’ (Coke 1670, p. 20) That, if the troubles ending in lawsuits
which stem from the ambiguous ownerships of lands are dissolved, trade will
improve without the artificial lowering of interest rates is the argument of
the one of two sides in the controversy over interest rates at the same period.
For the discussants of this side the lowness of interest rates was just a result
of the other diverse social factors, the important one of which was the
settlements of the land-ownership, that is, the registration of estates. Thus
Coke clearly responds to the controversy over this issue.
Coke demonstrates by syllogism the decrease of ship-building in England
which was resulted from the Navigation Acts: ‘Timber is a necessary means
to build Ships’; The Timber of England is diminished by the Act of
Navigation’; ‘Therefore the Building Ships in England is hindred by the Act
of Navigation.’ (Coke 1670, pp. 24-5) In the same way theses follows further
theses: because of the decay of the ship-building the ships of England are
diminished by the Act; due to the decrease of ships ‘the Navigation of
England is hindred by the Act of Navigation’ (Coke 1670, p. 26); because the
navigation is ‘the only means’ of fishing into foreign sea, the Act of
Navigation hinder such fishing (Coke 1670, pp. 27-8); consequently, the
English products are to be exported by a few English Merchant and their
prices will be under their control (Coke 1670, pp. 28-9).
Coke agrees that the ‘Reason’ in the Navigation Act is good because it
would prevent the foreigners to trade with the English plantations and
Ireland or otherwise ‘other Nations, especially the Dutch, would have reaped
more benefit by them than we should have done’. Nevertheless, Coke
insists, it is ‘a Free Trade’, rather than ‘this restraint’, that enriches the
English trade, their plantations and Ireland (Coke 1670, p. 33).
Coke illustrates the ‘Consequences’ brought by this Act in the European
trade web: before the Act ‘we could Victual Ships with good and substantial
Food cheaper than the Dutch’ while ‘since the Act the Dutch and French
18
Victual much cheaper in Ireland, than we can do in England’; before the Act
the eastern and southern part of England supplied Flanders, France,
Portugal, and Spain with butter ‘in a very considerable manner’, though now
it is interrupted; before the Act against the import of Irish cattle, England
was ‘the Storehouse for all sorts of Commodities’ from their plantations and
other countries, while now the Irish transport their beef into France, Holland,
Zealand, and Flanders in barter with the products of those countries (Coke
1670, pp. 34-5).
Coke summarises: the English trade not only is diminished by their
American plantations, ‘re-peopling’ Ireland, the Great Plague, and wars but
also the supernumeraries of solicitors, bankers, scriveners and usurers, ‘who
instead of Trading, divert all the means of improving Trade, and engross (I
am confident) above six times as much mony as is imployed in Trades
beneficial to the Nation’. However, Coke does not intend to attack those
money-eating people while his contemporaries did. Instead, he argues that
the ‘Riches and Strength’ of a country depend on how many men and how
much money and stock are employed in trade. Holland is referred to as a
good example which England, facing such a precarious situation, should
follow. Trade made the Dutch most considerable, richest and most mighty
in the world and they ‘understand’ this principle (Coke 1670, p. 36).
Coke argues that money is ‘a convenient means’ to improve trade and,
therefore, if it is not allowed to transport money abroad, foreign trade will be
‘hindered’.
Two groups are compared: the Dutch, Venetians, and
Florentines ‘who understand this, and have no mony of their own, freely
permit the Exportation of mony in Trade, and grow rich thereby’; but, in
contrast, Spain, who has the treasures from the West-Indies, ‘upon the
penalty of Death’, forbids the export of money and they are becoming poorer.
Then Coke refers to Thomas Mun, who is ‘a man of excellent knowledge and
experience in Trade’, and his England’s Treasure, chapter four, as knowing
this principle (Coke 1670, pp. 36-7).
Coke also talks about the public revenues. According to him, the customs
could be a hindrance to trade: ‘the higher the Customs the worse the Trade’.
So, he suggests, if instead of customs the impositions are paid ‘by way of
Excise’ as they are in the United Netherland, the king’s revenue will be the
same (Coke 1670, pp. 40-1). Then, Coke reveals here again in comparison
with the Dutch case the fact that though the English run ten-fold greater
19
trade than the United Netherland, because of their low customs and high
excise the revenue of the Dutch government is three-fold more than the
English (Coke 1670, p. 42).
As the conclusion of Part I, Coke insists that the ‘practice of excluding
Foreiners’ such as the Act of Navigation is ‘pernicious’. The French king
well understood how beneficial it is to encourage the freedom of trade, ‘by
entertaining all sorts of Forein Artificers’. Therefore it is ‘no ways prudent’
to discourage the measures executed by the French ‘as well as Dutch.’ (Coke
1670, p. 46)
The part II focuses on the comparison between the Dutch trade and the
English. It here intends to show the reason why ‘the Dutch Govern and
manage Trade better than the English’ (Coke 1670, p. 49). At the beginning
of this part Coke lists up eighteen ‘Petitions’ all of which demonstrate the
superiority of the Dutch over the English, which are concerning
industriousness, the greater supply and rich variety of timber, ship-building,
less customs, low interest rates, education, statesmen being interested in
trade, well-managed business, cheaper buying and cheaper selling, and less
corruptions (Coke 1670, pp. 49-51). Coke uses syllogism again to argue the
primacy of the Dutch trade: ‘more freely managed’ business is better than
‘more restrained’ one; the Dutch trade is ‘more freely managed’ than the
English; therefore, the Dutch manage trade better than the English (Coke
1670, p. 52).
Particularly timber is essential for ship-building. The Dutch have ‘more
Timber, more choise, and upon easier terms than the English’, Coke reasons,
therefore the Dutch can build more and cheaper ships than the English.
Coke annotates that the low cost of the Dutch ships ‘was proved’ at a
committee of the House of Commons (‘last Session of Parliament’). He also
notes that, even though the ships built of English timber were ‘much more
Durable and strong’, they are now ‘wasted and destroyed’ or used for
rebuilding the city of London. The Dutch have a greater quantity of pitch,
tar, hemp for cordage, tackle, and iron, to which the low cost of their ships is
ascribed, while those resources in England are insufficient and, therefore,
they must import them (Coke 1670, pp. 56-7). From these conditions Coke
deduces the proposition that the Dutch acquire more and cheaper foreign
commodities than the English (Coke 1670, pp. 56-8). Then Coke sums up
and makes sure that in Holland double mariners navigate with half hands,
20
that means, the Dutch navigate four times more efficiently than the English
do and that therefore the Dutch export herrings they took on the English
Coast cheaper than in England and they acquire foreign commodities
cheaper in England (Coke 1670, pp. 59-60).
Because the Dutch buy more and cheaper foreign commodities as shown
above, pay less customs, and lest interest money, Coke’s logic consequently
lead to an axiom that they can sell cheaper with more gain than the English
(Coke 1670, p. 61). It should be noticed that, on the one hand, Coke here try
to be strictly deductive, but, on the other, his demonstration sticks to the
comparison between specific countries, that is, Holland and England.
Claiming that he follows the observations by Sir Walter Raleigh, Coke
demonstrates the examples of how beneficially the low customs and low
interest rates in Holland work for their trade in reference to the cases of
other European countries, though Raleigh, that is, Keymer did not mention
interest rates or usury15. While at the part Coke entitled ‘Pay less Interest
for mony’, following the part about customs, he draws the example of the
preservations of the ‘stores of all sorts of Commodities’ in Holland from
Raleigh in the form of nearly a quotation, in the same paragraph he
mentions the lowness of interest rates as an advantage of the Dutch, which
Rwleigh, that is, Keymer did not refer to this subject (Coke 1670, p. 62). It
is obvious that the issue of interest rates was added by Coke who lives in the
period of the interest-rate controversy.
Coke also refers to the merit of the Dutch education. He argues that the
Dutch states are ‘more conversant’ in trade than the English because the
Dutch educate the youth ‘better for understanding Trade’ than the English
(Coke 1670, pp. 65-6). Then, Coke reasons that, as the Dutch statesmen are
more interested in trade than the English, they are ‘less subject to be
corrupted to the prejudice of Trade’ and that being ‘safe’ from corruption
creates a ‘diligence’ in the management of fishing and manufactures (Coke
1670, p. 68).
In the epilogue Coke repeats the potentiality of the English trade again in
reference to Sir Walter Raleigh who ‘long ago observed, that our Sea and
Land Commodities serve only to enrich and strengthen other Countries
15
Coke 1670, pp. 61-2. This is indeed the observations of Keymer. See
ODNB. Coke follows the part of p. 169 in Raleigh’s version of 1661 and fos.
10- in Keymer’s original version of 1620.
21
against our own.’ (Coke 1670, p. 76) And at the last part Coke sum up his
argument: ‘If we lose the Trade of England, we must lose Navigation; if we
lose Navigation we lose the Sovereignty of the Seas’ (Coke 1670, p. 76).
Conclusion
After the half-century discussion on fishing business, particularly
herring-fishing, and the accumulation of the knowledge of it the English
pamphleteers moved to the next stage around the mid-seventeenth century.
Pamphleteers facing the Anglo-Dutch wars changed their attitudes toward
the Dutch from admiration to hostility. However, it is also true that the
English kept learning from the Dutch. Each pamphleteer has one or
several lists of what to learn and each list included widely ranged topics, that
is, not only fishing-skill, ship-building, industry and low customs, as the
older generations picked up, but also low interest rates, good education and
the good understanding and management of trade by the government.
Though writers did not necessarily agreed about particular issues, such as
the Navigation Acts, they shared the content of the list to learn from the
Dutch. Josiah Child’s proposal of lowering the maximum legal rate of
interest of money and a number of the projects of the registration of estates
and the establishment of Lombard banks derived from the attempts of
imitating the Dutch model.
Bibliography
Primary sources
=Anonymous,Ἰχθυοθηρα, or, the Royal Trade of Fishing; discovering the ...
profit the Hollanders have made thereof; with the vast emolument that will
redound to his ... Majesty, and his three kingdomes, by the improvement of it.
[Preceded by Letters Patent of King Charles II., dated Aug. 22, 1661,
constituting a Society, entitled: The Royal Fishing of Great Britain and
Ireland.] London, 1662. Pt. 1, containing the Letters Patent, is dated
1661.
=Anonymous, An Exact survey of the affaires of the United Netherlands :
comprehending more fully than any other thing yet extant, all the
22
particulars of that subject : in twelve heads, mentioned in the address to the
reader. London, 1665.
=Borough, John, Sir, d. 1643. The soveraignty of the British seas : proved by
records, history, and the municipall lawes of this kingdome / written in the
yeare 1633 by ... Sr John Boroughs. London : Printed for Humphrey Moseley,
and are to be sold at his shop, 1651.
=Child, Sir J., Brief observations concerning trade and interest of money / by
J.C. , London, 1668.
=Coke, R., A discourse of trade, in two parts : the first treats of the reason
of the decay of the strength, wealth, and trade of England, the latter of the
growth and increase of the Dutch trade above the English / by Roger Coke.
London, 1670.
=Gentleman, T.. Englands way to win wealth, and to employ ships and
marriners, or, A plaine description what great profite it will bring vnto the
common-wealth of England : by the erecting, building, and aduenturing of
busses, to sea, a fishing. London, 1614.
=Hobbes, T. ed. by Tuck, R., Leviathan. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press. 1991 [1651].
=Hobbes, T. ed. by Sir William Molesworth, The English works of Thomas
Hobbes, volume VI. London, 1839.
=Keymer, J., A petition, GB 0096 MS 189, London University, Senate House
Library, fos. 2-5.
=Keymer, J., ‘Keymers Booke of observac’ons for your most excellent Ma.tie
touchinge trade traffique beyond ye seas and in England’, GB 0096 MS 189,
London University, Senate House Library, 1620, fos. 8-15.
=Keymor, J., John Keymors observation made upon the Dutch fishing about
the year 1601 : demonstrating that there is more wealth raised out of
herrings and other fish in His Majesties seas by the neighbouring nations in
one year, then the King of Spain hath from the Indies in four : and that there
were twenty thousand ships and other vessels and about four hundred
thousand people then set on work by both sea and land, and maintained only
by fishing upon the coasts of England, Scotland, and Ireland. London, 1664.
=L’Estrange, Sir R., A discourse of the fishery : briefly laying open not only
the advantages and facility of the undertaking but likewise the absolute
necessity of it in order to the well-being both of King and people; asserted
and vindicated from all materiall objections. London, 1674.
23
=Philopatris. The advocate. London, 1651.
= Raleigh, W., Sir Walter Raleigh's Observations, touching trade &
commerce with the Hollander, and other nations, as it was presented to K.
James, etc.. London, 1553.
=Worsley, B., Free ports, and the nature of them stated. London, 1651.
Secondary sources
Ito, S., ‘Interest controversy in its context’、 The 14th Annual Conference of
the European Society for the History of Economic Thought、The Amsterdam
School of Economics at the University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The
Netherlands, 26 March 2010.
Ito, S., ‘The making of institutional credit in England, 1600-1688', pp.
487-519, European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, vol.18:4,
2011, October.
Ito, S., ‘Interest Controversy, the second round’, The 16th Annual Conference
of the European Society for the History of Economic Thought 、 Saint
Petersburg State University, Saint-Petersburg, Russia, 17 May 2012.
Ito, S., ‘Registration and credit in seventeenth-century England’, pp. 137-162,
Financial History Review, vol. 20:2, 2013, August.
Ito, S., ‘What should the English learn from the Dutch?’, The 18h Annual
Conference of the European Society for the History of Economic Thought,
Université de Lausanne, Centre Walras-Pareto, Lausanne, Switzerland, 29th
May, 2014.
Leng, T.. Benjamin Worsley (1618-1677): trade, interest and the spirit in
revolutionary England. Woodbridge: The Boydell Press, 2008, p. 75.
24