Diversity and Difference in Early Modern London

Diversity and Difference in Early Modern London

Jacob Selwood

DIVERSITY AND DIFFERENCE IN EARLY MODERN LONDON

To Ann, with love

Diversity and Difference in Early Modern London

JACOB SELWOOD Georgia State University, USA

© Jacob Selwood 2010 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without the prior permission of the publisher. Jacob Selwood has asserted his right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, to be LGHQWL¿HGDVWKHDXWKRURIWKLVZRUN Published by Ashgate Publishing Limited Wey Court East Union Road Farnham Surrey, GU9 7PT England

Ashgate Publishing Company Suite 420 101 Cherry Street Burlington VT 05401-4405 USA

www.ashgate.com British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Selwood, Jacob. Diversity and difference in early modern London. 1. Cultural pluralism–England–London–History–16th century. 2. Cultural pluralism–England– London–History–17th century. 3. Cultural pluralism–England–London–History–16th century Sources. 4. Cultural Pluralism–England–London–History–17th century–Sources. 5. London (England)–Social conditions–16th century. 6. London (England)–Social conditions–17th century. 7. London (England)–Social conditions–16th century–Sources. 8. London (England)– Social conditions–17th century–Sources. I. Title 305.8’009421’09031-dc22 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Selwood, Jacob. Diversity and difference in early modern London / Jacob Selwood. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index.  ,6%1KDUGFRYHUDONSDSHU ±,6%1  HERRN   (WKQLF JURXSV±(QJODQG±/RQGRQ±+LVWRU\±WK FHQWXU\  (WKQLF JURXSV±(QJODQG± London–History–17th century. 3. Minorities–England–London–History–16th century. 4. Minorities– England–London–History–17th century. 5. Immigrants–England–London–History–16th century. 6. Immigrants–England–London–History–17th century. 7. Aliens–England–London–History–16th century. 8. Aliens–England–London–History–17th century. 9. London (England)–Emigration and immigration. I. Title. DA676.9.A1S45 2010 305.8009421’09032–dc22 2009035083 ,6%1KEN ,6%1HEN.II

Contents

Preface Acknowledgments List of Abbreviations Introduction

vii ix xi 1

1 Setting the Stage: Finding a Place in Early Modern London

19

2 “No Better Than Conduit Pipes”: Occupational Practice and the Creation of Difference

51

3 “English-born Reputed Strangers”: Birth and Descent in Theory and Practice

87

4 Jewish Immigration in an Anti-stranger Context

129

5 The Islamic World, Captivity and Difference

159

Conclusion Bibliography Index

189 195 211

This page has been left blank intentionally

Preface

7KHZULWLQJRIWKLVERRNFRLQFLGHGERWKZLWKP\RZQH[SHULHQFHVDVDQLPPLJUDQW and with a particularly fraught period in the recent history of immigration. While ,ZDVFRQGXFWLQJUHVHDUFKLQ/RQGRQP\ZLIH$QQZDVZRUNLQJRQDPDVWHU¶V thesis in journalism that involved research with the Newham Monitoring Project, DQRUJDQL]DWLRQSURYLGLQJDGYRFDF\IRUWKRVHIDFLQJUDFLDOGLVFULPLQDWLRQ,¿UVW put pen to paper on an embryonic version of the text early on the morning of 11 September 2001. That day, of course, brought world-historical events that led not just to two wars, but, in America, to a period in which immigrants from Muslim countries were directly targeted by the federal government for special registration and worse. More recently, we have seen further xenophobia on both sides of the Atlantic, from anti-immigrant rhetoric in US politics to the election of two members of the far-right British National Party as members of the European Parliament. And during the same period I also found myself traveling through the US immigration system, on a path to permanent residency and eventual citizenship. Whether because of news headlines or long pre-dawn hours queuing outside immigration RI¿FHVLWZDVLPSRVVLEOHWRDYRLGWKLQNLQJDERXWWKHFRQWHPSRUDU\FRQWH[W :KLOH , KDYH HVFKHZHG PDNLQJ GLUHFW SDUDOOHOV EHWZHHQ HDUO\ PRGHUQ DQG FXUUHQW HYHQWV ZKHQ ZULWLQJ WKLV ERRN RII WKH SDJH , KDYH EHHQ VWUXFN E\ how depressingly familiar some early modern complaints are in the light of FRQWHPSRUDU\SROLWLFVDQGYLFHYHUVD $OOHJDWLRQVWKDW³WKH\´DUHWDNLQJ³RXU´ jobs seem ineradicable. While the context over four hundred years remains, of FRXUVHYHU\GLIIHUHQWLWLVVRPHWLPHVGLI¿FXOWWRDYRLGGUDZLQJGLUH²LIRYHUWO\ DKLVWRULFDO²FRQFOXVLRQVDERXWKXPDQQDWXUH Yet it is also important to note reasons for optimism, or at least signs of basic human decency. Readers inclined towards similarly despondent parallels should, ,WKLQNWDNHQRWHRIWKHVSHHFKRI6LU7KRPDV0RUHLQWKH(OL]DEHWKDQSOD\RI WKHVDPHQDPH,QZRUGVSUREDEO\ZULWWHQE\:LOOLDP6KDNHVSHDUH0RUHWHOOVD JURXS RI DQWLLPPLJUDQW ULRWHUV WR FDOP WKHLU ³PRXQWDQLVK LQKXPDQLW\´ DVNLQJ them to imagine “the strangers’ case.” They should, he suggests, consider what LW ZRXOG EH OLNH LI WKH\ WRR ZHUH ³VSXUQ>HG@ OLNH GRJV´ ZLWK ³GHWHVWHG NQLYHV´ against their throats.1 1 Anthony Munday et al., Sir Thomas More: A Play, ed. Vittorio Gabrieli and Giorgio Melchiori, The Revels Plays (Manchester, 1990), 2.3.141–51, cited in A.J. Hoenselaars, Images of Englishmen and Foreigners in the Drama of Shakespeare and His Contemporaries: A Study of Stage Characters and National Identity in English Renaissance Drama, 1558–1642 (Rutherford, NJ and London, 1992), p. 51. The play is discussed in Chapter 2 below, p. 54.

viii

Diversity and Difference in Early Modern London

7KDQNIXOO\ LW LV SRVVLEOH WR EHOLHYH WKDW LQ ERWK WKH HDUO\ PRGHUQ DQG contemporary worlds “mountanish inhumanity” does not get the last word. While WKLVERRNPDNHVDVSHFL¿FDUJXPHQWDERXWFLYLFDWWLWXGHVWRZDUGVLPPLJUDQWVDQG their children (and indeed, eschews a focus on xenophobia in favor of a wider investigation of attitudes towards difference), it is important to remember that then, as now, assertions of solidarity existed alongside expressions of hostility. We PXVWFRQVLGHUQRWMXVWWKRVHZKRVHHNWRH[FOXGHEXWDOVR7KRPDV0RUHDQGWKH Newham Monitoring Project. Jacob Selwood June 2009

$FNQRZOHGJPHQWs

, FRXOG QRW KDYH ZULWWHQ WKLV ERRN ZLWKRXW WKH KHOS RI QXPHURXV SHRSOH DQG LQVWLWXWLRQV)LQDQFLDOVXSSRUWIURP'XNH8QLYHUVLW\*HRUJLD6WDWH8QLYHUVLW\WKH Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada and the Huntington /LEUDU\HQVXUHGWKDW,KDGVXI¿FLHQWIXQGLQJWRFRQGXFWP\UHVHDUFKDQGZULWLQJ , YHU\ PXFK DSSUHFLDWH WKHLU JHQHURVLW\ , ZRXOG DOVR OLNH WR WKDQN WKH VWDII RI WKHKLVWRU\GHSDUWPHQWVRIERWK'XNHDQG*HRUJLD6WDWH8QLYHUVLWLHVDORQJZLWK that of the Huntington Library, the Institute of Historical Research, the Guildhall /LEUDU\ WKH &RUSRUDWLRQ RI /RQGRQ 5HFRUG 2I¿FH WKH %ULWLVK /LEUDU\ DQG WKH British National Archives. 'XNH 8QLYHUVLW\¶V 'HSDUWPHQW RI +LVWRU\ SURYLGHG WKH HQYLURQPHQW WKDW JDYH ELUWK WR WKLV SURMHFW , ZRXOG HVSHFLDOO\ OLNH WR WKDQN &\QWKLD +HUUXS IRU KHU PHQWRUVKLS NLQGQHVV ULJRURXV FULWLFLVPDQG LQWHOOHFWXDOJHQHURVLW\ .ULVWHQ 1HXVFKHO%LOO5HGG\6XVDQ7KRUQHDQG3HWHU:RRGDOVRGHVHUYHVSHFLDOWKDQNV ,DPDOVRJUDWHIXOWR5REHUW*RKHHQ3DPHOD:DONHU$OHNVDQGUD%HQQHWWDQG0DUN Phillips of Carleton University. Without their instruction at the undergraduate and master’s level I would not have become a historian. Many others provided help, advice and necessary pointers at various stages of this project, including Joseph :DUG&ODLUH6FKHQ0DULDQQH0RQWJRPPHU\$ULHO+HVVD\RQDQG/OR\G.HUPRGH Of my colleagues at Georgia State University, Marni Davis, Ian Fletcher, Lauren Ristvet (now at the University of Pennsylvania) and Michele Reid all deserve VSHFLDOWKDQNVIRUUHDGLQJSDUWVRIWKHPDQXVFULSW Many friends on both sides of the Atlantic supported me throughout this SURMHFW&DWK\DQG$GULDQ6WRGGDUWDQG3HWHUDQG0RRNLH+XUVWZHUHJHQHURXV ZLWKWKHLUKRVSLWDOLW\ZKHQ,¿UVWDUULYHGLQ/RQGRQ'DYLG:LOVRQ6KD]LD.KDQ .DW\ )HQQ 0DUN 6KHIWDOO $QGUHZ 6SDUOLQJ 0DWWKHZ 6SHFWHU 5LFN 6DZ\HU :D\QHDQG5KRQGD/HH&KDUOHVDQG(ULQ*ULJVE\%HQDQG.HOVD6PLWK3KLOLSSH 5RVHQEHUJ-HQQLIHU7HUQL1LFN:LOGLQJ5HQD'LDPRQGDQG9DGLP3RNKOHENLQ DOOGHVHUYHVSHFLDOPHQWLRQDORQJZLWKPDQ\RWKHUVZKRDUH,DPOXFN\WRVD\ too numerous to name. 7KLVERRNZRXOGDOVRQRWKDYHEHHQSRVVLEOHZLWKRXWWKHORYHRIP\IDPLO\ particularly my parents, Roni and Rod Powell, and my sister, Anna Selwood. Finally, words cannot express my gratitude to my wife, Ann Claycombe, whose ORYHZLVGRPSDWLHQFHDQGXQGHUVWDQGLQJNQRZQRERXQGV

This page has been left blank intentionally

List of Abbreviations

BL &&-RXU &/52 DNB EL GL HM Lans. OED PC Rep.  SP TNA

British Library, London &RPPRQ &RXQFLO -RXUQDOV &RUSRUDWLRQ RI /RQGRQ 5HFRUG 2I¿FH London &RUSRUDWLRQRI/RQGRQ5HFRUG2I¿FH/RQGRQ Oxford Dictionary of National Biography Ellesmere Manuscripts, Huntington Library, San Marino, California Guildhall Library, London Huntington Manuscripts, Huntington Library, San Marino, California Lansdowne MSS, British Library, London Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd edn. Privy Council Registers, National Archives, London Repertories of the Court of Aldermen, Corporation of London Record 2I¿FH/RQGRQ State Papers, National Archives, London National Archives, London

This page has been left blank intentionally

Introduction

Around 1580 an anonymous writer compiled a list of allegations against “retailing strangers,” complaining of the harm that immigrants caused to English merchants. The author alleged that the new arrivals were “dangerous to the state” due to trading practices that “enhance the prices of wares,” and because of the strangers’ H[WUHPHZHDOWKWKHLUODFNRIUHOLJLRQDQGWKHIDFWWKDWWKH\³NHHSDFRPPRQZHDOWK amongst themselves,” causing the subjects of the realm to become “beggars and EDQNUXSWV´1 In January 1616 the Privy Council referred one Anastatius Ralapolus, “a Grecian born,” to the lord mayor of London with a request for assistance in order to redeem his parents out of the “miserable thralldom” into which they had IDOOHQ³E\WKHW\UDQQ\RIWKH7XUN´7KHUHLVQRUHFRUGRIWKHPD\RU¶VUHVSRQVH2 A decade later, in January 1625, upon the motion of the lord mayor, the Court of Aldermen ruled that “no alien, son, or grandchild of an alien” should be allowed to become a citizen of the City of London.3 And in 1660 the same body, together with the mayor, petitioned the newly restored Charles II to expel London’s Jewish community, which the government of Oliver Cromwell had allowed into England in 1656. They complained that strangers, “both Christians and Jews,” had conspired WRH[SRUW(QJOLVKZRROHQV³DQGRWKHUQDWLYHFRPPRGLWLHV´GHIUDXGLQJNLQJDQG FRXQWU\RIWKH³IRUHLJQWUDGH´DQGWKUHDWHQLQJ(QJOLVKPDUNHWVZLWK³PRUHDQG more decay.”4 All of these appeals made statements about belonging and exclusion in the City of London. Petitioners cast “aliens” and “strangers,” usually of French or Dutch origin, as a drain on the realm; the Privy Council endorsed the presence RI5DODSROXVLIRQO\WRSRLQWRXWWKHODUJHUW\UDQQ\RI³WKH7XUN´WKHORUGPD\RU 1 British Library, Lansdowne Manuscripts 99, fols. 171r–v (hereafter BL, Lansdowne MSS). The date is written in pencil on the manuscript. When quoting from unpublished early modern sources, I have modernized all spelling, capitalization and punctuation and have extended all abbreviations. Dates are in Old Style, with the exception that the year is WDNHQWRKDYHEHJXQRQ-DQXDU\:KHQDGDWHIURPDQRULJLQDOVRXUFHLVZLWKLQTXRWDWLRQ PDUNVKRZHYHU,KDYHQRWDOWHUHGWKHEHJLQQLQJRIWKH\HDU 2 &RUSRUDWLRQ RI /RQGRQ 5HFRUG 2I¿FH KHUHDIWHU &/52  Remembrancia, vol. 4, fol. 11r. 3 CLRO, Repertories of the Court of Aldermen 39, fol. 78v (hereafter CLRO, Rep.). Throughout this study I will use the upper-case “City” to refer both to the government of the City of London and the area under its formal control. The lower-case “city” should be WDNHQWRLQFOXGHWKHHQWLUHPHWURSROLWDQDUHD6HH&KDSWHUEHORZIRUDGHWDLOHGGLVFXVVLRQ of the divisions of London and its suburbs. 4 CLRO, Remembrancia, vol. 9, fols. 27v–28r.

Diversity and Difference in Early Modern London

2

and Court of Aldermen stated baldly that people born in the metropolis were not, in fact, Londoners if their parents or grandparents had come from abroad. They also asserted the malevolence and ultimate foreignness of the Jewish community, accusing its members of conspiring with other immigrants. Although causally unrelated, each points to the disparate peoples present in England’s metropolis, highlighting both the city’s global ties and Londoners’ varying responses to the city’s changing population. London in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries was a surprisingly diverse place, a result both of the city’s proximity to Continental Europe and its growing Atlantic and Mediterranean connections. The metropolis was home not just to SHRSOHIURPWKURXJKRXWWKH%ULWLVK,VOHVEXWWRDVLJQL¿FDQWSRSXODWLRQRI)UHQFK and Dutch immigrants. A 1593 survey counted 7,113 strangers in the City and its suburbs, part of a wider metropolitan population of almost 200,000.5 Other groups were also present, albeit in smaller numbers. Ambassadors, mariners, travelers and UHIXJHHVFDPHIURPDVIDUD¿HOGDV+XQJDU\7XUNH\DQG0RURFFR7KHFLW\KRVWHG a small, hidden crypto-Jewish community, originating in the Iberian peninsula and practicing openly by the 1650s, as well as a number of sub-Saharan Africans, most brought involuntarily as slaves and servants. By the end of the seventeenth FHQWXU\ 6HSKDUGLF -HZV ZHUH MRLQHG E\$VKNHQD]LP WRJHWKHU ZLWK LPPLJUDQWV arriving from Germany, Greece and elsewhere. These are just a few examples, but WKH\SRLQWWRDPXOWLFXOWXUDODQGPXOWLHWKQLFPHWURSROLV
Irene Scouloudi (ed.), Returns of Strangers in the Metropolis 1593, 1627, 1635, 1639: A Study of an Active Minority, Huguenot Society of London Quarto Series, vol. 57 (London, 1985), p. 100; Roger Finlay and Beatrice Shearer, “Population Growth and Suburban Expansion,” in A.L. Beier and Roger Finlay (eds.), London 1500–1700: The Making of the Metropolis (London, 1986), p. 48. 6 Chapter 1 below will discuss the composition of the city and its population in detail. For London’s French and Dutch Protestant community, see Andrew Pettegree, Foreign Protestant Communities in Sixteenth-century London (Oxford, 1986); Laura Hunt Yungblut, “Strangers Settled Here Amongst Us”: Policies, Perceptions, and the Presence of Aliens in Elizabethan England (London, 1996); Lien Bich Luu, Immigrants and the Industries of London, 1500–1700 (Aldershot and Burlington, VT, 2005). For an alphabetical list of the countries of origin of London’s aliens (from a 1593 survey), see Scouloudi, Returns, pp. 223–31. The establishment of churches by communities from Germany, Greece and elsewhere in the late seventeenth century is discussed in Daniel Statt, Foreigners and Englishmen: The Controversy over Immigration and Population, 1660–17601HZDUN'( and London, 1995), pp. 29–30. Nabil Matar’s Islam in Britain, 1558–1685 (Cambridge, 1998) and Turks, Moors and Englishmen in the Age of Discovery1HZ
Introduction

3

French and Dutch Protestants far outnumbered London’s other immigrant groups in the early modern period.7 To what degree did Londoners view them as different? Did they do so because they were French, Dutch, or simply on account of being foreign? The word “foreigner” applied to English people from beyond the City, “alien” and “stranger” referring to those from overseas.8 Were such “strangers” strange because of their language or dress, or because their Protestantism differed from that of the English? Indeed, given that many immigrants arrived bearing new VNLOOVZDVWKHLUGLIIHUHQFHLQHYLWDEOH"$QGZKDWRIWKHFKLOGUHQDQGJUDQGFKLOGUHQ RIVWUDQJHUV":HUHWKH\/RQGRQHUVZKRZHUHIUHHLQWXUQWRORRNXSRQQHZO\ arriving immigrants as strangers, or were they themselves aliens in all but accent? Add to these questions those that arise from encounters with peoples all too often RYHUORRNHG LQ WKH KLVWRU\ RI WKH HDUO\ PRGHUQ PHWURSROLV²0XVOLPV -HZV DQG VXE6DKDUDQ $IULFDQV IRU H[DPSOH²DQG LW EHFRPHV FOHDU WKDW ZH NQRZ YHU\ little about how early modern Londoners conceived of difference and why they practiced exclusion. Our own ways of dividing up the peoples of the world are of a much later provenance. “Race,” whether as inherited prejudice or an obsolete category that we now view with critical distance, is a bequest of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.9 In early modern England the word referred to one’s family lineage;  DQG.LP+DOO¶VThings of Darkness: Economies of Race and Gender in Early Modern England (Ithaca, NY, 1995). 7 Scouloudi, ReturnsS7KHVHPDGHXSWKHEXONRIWKHVWUDQJHUVFRXQWHG in one 1593 survey of the City and its suburbs, part of a wider metropolitan population of almost 200,000; see ibid., p. 100; Finlay and Shearer, “Population Growth,” p. 48. 8 On the use of these terms, see Ian Archer, The Pursuit of Stability: Social Relations in Elizabethan London, Cambridge Studies in Early Modern British History (Cambridge DQG1HZ
4

Diversity and Difference in Early Modern London

WKHDULVWRFUDF\ZHUHPRVWOLNHO\WRKDYHXVHGLWWRGHVFULEHWKHLURZQGHVFHQW10 Physical characteristics that later became associated with race carried their own PHDQLQJVLQWKHHDUO\PRGHUQSHULRG'DUNVNLQFRPPRQO\LQGLFDWHGWKHLQÀXHQFH of a warm climate or the biblical curse visited upon Noah’s son Ham, the latter implying the common ancestry of all peoples while not yet denoting a fate rooted in servitude.11,QGHHGFDQZHHYHQVSHDNRI³HWKQLFLW\´LQODWHVL[WHHQWKFHQWXU\ /RQGRQ":HUH)OHPLVKUHIXJHHVZKRVSRNHWKHVDPHODQJXDJHEXWKDLOHGIURP lands on different sides of the war with Spain, part of the same ethnic group? Sixteenth- and seventeenth-century usage referred to peoples who were neither Christians nor Jews.12 Even our most basic terms for conceiving of difference carry the dangers of anachronism. To avoid grafting the terms of the present onto the past we must pay close attention to the ways in which the people of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries ordered the heterogeneity around them. In short, we need a history of early modern difference. Such a study is already under way on a number of fronts, IURPOLWHUDU\LQYHVWLJDWLRQVRIHDUO\PRGHUQFRQFHSWVRIEODFNQHVVWRH[DPLQDWLRQV of the antecedents of modern racism in the Americas.137KLVERRNFRQWULEXWHVWR that much larger project by focusing on belonging and exclusion in England’s metropolis. What did London’s position as a point of contact between the British Isles, Europe and the wider world contribute to early modern notions of belonging DQGH[FOXVLRQ"&DQZHVSHDNRIVSHFL¿FDOO\PHWURSROLWDQQRWLRQVRIGLIIHUHQFH DQGLIVRZKDWZDVWKHLUZLGHUVLJQL¿FDQFH",QDWLPHEHIRUHUDFHDQGLQDFRQWH[W where the mix of peoples differed from that of later centuries, how did Londoners respond to the diversity around them?

10 The Oxford English Dictionary contains no example of the taxonomical use of “race” for humans prior to the eighteenth century. For the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, usages include denotations of lines of common descent, offspring and a “limited JURXSRISHUVRQVGHVFHQGHGIURPDFRPPRQDQFHVWRUDKRXVHIDPLO\NLQGUHG´Oxford English Dictionary (hereafter OED), 2nd edn., s.v. “race.” 11 Sujata Iyengar, Shades of Difference: Mythologies of Skin Color in Early Modern England (Philadelphia, PA, 2005), pp. 8–9. As Iyengar notes, early modern writers who questioned these maxims contributed to their ultimate demise. By the end of the seventeenth century, “a systematic mythology of race” tied to “new methods of generating wealth and ZRUN´ZRXOGHFOLSVHHDUOLHU³P\WKRORJLHVRIFRORU´LELGSS± 12 See OED, s.v. “ethnicity.” This was how the Scottish traveler William Lithgow used the word when he referred to the Catholics he encountered in Rome as “only titular &KULVWLDQV « ZRUVH RI NQRZOHGJH WKDQ HWKQLF SDJDQV´ :LOOLDP /LWKJRZ The Totall Discourse of the Rare Aduentures and Painefull Peregrinations of Long Nineteene Yeares Trauayles, from Scotland, to the Most Famous Kingdomes in Europe, Asia, and Affrica (London, 1632), sig. E1v (part one, p. 18). 13 See, for example, Iyengar’s Shades of Difference; Alden T. Vaughan, The Roots of American Racism: Essays on the Colonial Experience1HZ
Introduction

5

Immigration, Otherness and the Study of Difference Because the history of difference is broader than that of any discrete immigrant group, it requires a comparative approach. Yet most historical scholarship has focused on individual immigrant communities. The study of London’s French and 'XWFK3URWHVWDQWVKDVÀRXULVKHGLQUHFHQW\HDUVEXLOGLQJRQWKHJURXQGZRUNODLG by Andrew Pettegree’s Foreign Protestant Communities.14 Most comprehensively, Laura Hunt Yungblut has traced both the experience of aliens and English attitudes towards strangers in the Elizabethan period, while Lien Bich Luu has mapped in detail the diffusion of trades within alien communities and the economic impact of immigration in the metropolis.15 Recent edited volumes also point to renewed scholarly interest in England’s aliens.16$OWKRXJKPXFKRIWKLVZRUNKDVIRFXVHGRQ the Elizabethan and early Stuart years, later decades have also received attention. 14 Pettegree, Foreign Protestant Communities. For a later investigation into the assimilation of aliens, see also Andrew Pettegree, “‘Thirty Years On:’ Progress Towards Integration Amongst the Immigrant Population of Elizabethan London,” in J. Chartres and D. Hey (eds.), English Rural Society, 1500–1800: Essays in Honour of Joan Thirsk (Cambridge, 1990), pp. 297–312. Here Pettegree suggests that the “growing number of >LPPLJUDQWV¶@FKLOGUHQERUQLQ(QJODQG´E\WKHHQGRIWKHVL[WHHQWKFHQWXU\LQGLFDWHVWKH TXLFNHQLQJ SDFH RI ³SHDFHIXO DVVLPLODWLRQ´ 3HWWHJUHH ³7KLUW\
6

Diversity and Difference in Early Modern London

0DUN6WR\OH¶VHWKQLFKLVWRU\RIWKH(QJOLVK&LYLO:DUKDVDVNHGYLWDOTXHVWLRQV about the impact of population movements in the 1640s and 1650s, while Daniel Statt has investigated the relationship between immigration policy and demographic perceptions in the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries.17 This new scholarship has included attempts to gauge the extent of xenophobia in England. Yet as we will see, the tendency to use violence and disorder as barometers of DQWLSDWK\ FDQ GLVWUDFW XV IURP WKH LPSRUWDQFH RI GDLO\ SUDFWLFH LQ GH¿QLQJ DQG policing difference.18 Other scholars have heightened awareness of the heterogeneity of early modern England by mapping the presence of groups often excluded from traditional histories of immigration, or by emphasizing connections with geographical UHJLRQVVRPHWLPHVRYHUORRNHGLQFRQYHQWLRQDOQDUUDWLYHVRIRYHUVHDVH[SDQVLRQ ,PWLD] +DELE¶V UHFHQW VWXG\ RI WKH SUHVHQFH RI EODFN SHRSOH LQ (QJODQG DVVHUWV the visibility of a community whose very collective existence scholars have often denied.19 Jews have also received renewed scholarly interest in recent decades, ranging from investigations of philo-Semitism in English Protestant thought to reHYDOXDWLRQVRIWKHVLJQL¿FDQFHRIWKH-HZLVKUHDGPLVVLRQLQ20 Nabil Matar’s to Citizens: The Integration of Immigrant Communities in Britain, Ireland, and Colonial America, 1550–1750 (Brighton and Portland, OR, 2001). 17 0DUN 6WR\OH Soldiers and Strangers: An Ethnic History of the English Civil War (New Haven, CT and London, 2005); Statt, Foreigners and Englishmen. Robin Gwynn’s Huguenot Heritage provides a comprehensive narrative of the French Protestant community in the seventeenth century; see Robin D. Gwynn, Huguenot Heritage: The History and Contribution of the Huguenots in Britain, 2nd rev. edn. (Brighton, 2001). For RWKHUZRUNRQWKHVHYHQWHHQWKFHQWXU\VHHIRUH[DPSOH-RKQ0+LQWHUPDLHU³7KH)LUVW Modern Refugees? Charity, Entitlement, and Persuasion in the Huguenot Immigration of the 1680s,” Albion ±$QQH-.HUVKHQ¶VStrangers, Aliens and Asians: +XJXHQRWV-HZVDQG%DQJODGHVKLVLQ6SLWDO¿HOGV±, British Politics and Society /RQGRQDQG1HZ
Introduction

7

trilogy examining English ties to the Islamic world, meanwhile, has highlighted the domestic impact of cultural and economic interaction with Barbary and the wider 2WWRPDQHPSLUHSRLQWLQJWRWKHVLJQL¿FDQFHRI,VODPZLWKLQWKH%ULWLVK,VOHV21 As Claire Schen has noted, such ties played out on the streets of the metropolis: charitable requests at the parish level in London included aid both to Muslims and WR WKRVH UHWXUQLQJ IURP FRQÀLFW RU FDSWLYLW\ LQ7XUNH\ RU 1RUWK$IULFD22 These studies have gone a long way towards broadening our awareness of the many peoples present in both London and the wider realm. Yet when discussing issues of belonging and exclusion, scholars have all too often asserted the primacy of their particular subject as the “other” of early modern England. Thus, for Nabil Matar, Muslims are “the chief Others in British Renaissance history.”23 Alternatively, for James Shapiro, “English character FRXOG EH GH¿QHG E\ LWV QHHG WR H[FOXGH µ-HZLVKQHVV¶´ ZKLOH )UDQN )HOVHQVWHLQ has argued that the Jew in the long eighteenth century is “the perpetual outsider ZKRVH XQVHWWOLQJ SUHVHQFH VHUYHV WR GH¿QH WKH ERXQGV WKDW VHSDUDWH WKH QDWLYH Englishman from the alien Other.”24,QDVLPLODUYHLQ.LP+DOOKDVDUJXHGWKDW antipathy towards Africans was the prime form of exclusion in English culture, with EODFNQHVVVHUYLQJDVDGHPRQLFW\SHDJDLQVWZKLFKSHRSOHGH¿QHG(QJOLVK²DQG SDUWLFXODUO\ IHPDOH²IDLUQHVV DQG SXULW\25 Such assertions about the monolithic “otherness” of any one group obscure the ways in which the people of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries conceived of the heterogeneity around them.

21 Matar, Islam in Britain; Matar, Turks, Moors and Englishmen; Matar, Britain and Barbary, 1589–1689 (Gainesville, FL, 2005). 22 See Claire S. Schen, “Constructing the Poor in Early Seventeenth-century London,” Albion ±&KDSWHUEHORZZLOOH[SORUHWKHVLJQL¿FDQFHRI WKHVHFRQQHFWLRQVIRURXUXQGHUVWDQGLQJRIGLIIHUHQFH3DXO*ULI¿WKVDOVRQRWHVWKH³OLWWOH OHDJXHRIQDWLRQVLQSDULVKDFFRXQWERRNVORJJLQJFKDULW\´DORQJZLWKWKHZLGHUGLYHUVLW\RI the metropolis, in his recent study of Londoners’ responses to civic growth. Unfortunately, ,RQO\EHFDPHDZDUHRIWKLVZRUNGXULQJWKH¿QDOVWDJHVRIPDQXVFULSWSUHSDUDWLRQ6HH 3DXO*ULI¿WKVLost Londons: Change, Crime, and Control in the Capital City, 1550–1660, Cambridge Social and Cultural Histories (Cambridge, 2008), pp. 72, 73–6. 23 Matar, Turks, Moors and Englishmen, p. 3. 24 Shapiro, Shakespeare and the Jews S  )UDQN )HOVHQVWHLQ Anti-Semitic Stereotypes: A Paradigm of Otherness in English Popular Culture, 1660–1830 (Baltimore, MD, 1995), p. 3. 25 +DOODUJXHVWKDWDOWKRXJKEODFNQHVVKDGDZLGHUUHVRQDQFHLQUHOLJLRXVGLVFRXUVH DVLWGLGLQGLVFXVVLRQVRI³1DWLYH$PHULFDQV,QGLDQV6SDQLVKDQGHYHQ,ULVKDQG:HOVK>@ … in these instances it still draws its power from England’s ongoing negotiations of African difference and from the implied color comparison therein.” Thus, “the traditional DVVRFLDWLRQRIEODFNQHVVLQFRQYHQWLRQDO&KULVWLDQV\PEROLVPZLWKGHDWKDQGPRXUQLQJVLQ DQGHYLO´EHFDPH³LQIXVHGZLWKLGHDVRI$IULFDDQG$IULFDQVHUYLWXGHPDNLQJLWLPSRVVLEOH WRVHSDUDWHµUDFLDO¶VLJQL¿HUVRIEODFNQHVVIURPWUDGLWLRQDOLFRQRJUDSK\´+DOOThings of Darkness, pp. 7, 4.

8

Diversity and Difference in Early Modern London

The overt study of difference has, perhaps, received most attention from literary scholars. Whether framed explicitly in this manner, as in the case of Sujata Iyengar’s Shades of Difference, or presented in other terms, critics have mined the diversity of the characters present in early modern drama.26 And such scholarship has not, of course, limited its attention to the theater, exploring genres ranging from travel narratives to poetry, martyrology and chorography.27 Jean Howard’s Theater of a City examines the intersection of London’s social geography with that of the stage, in doing so pointing to the many ways in which playwrights and inhabitants imagined “social life and social identity.” The city’s status as both a magnet for immigrants and a burgeoning gateway to the wider world ensured a “complex intermingling of xenophobia and cosmopolitanism,” represented in comedies by a variety of metropolitan locations.28 Clearly, both print and performance provide fertile ground for the study of difference. But what about life beyond the stage or WKHSDJHVRIHDUO\PRGHUQWH[WV":HUHWKHUHVSHFL¿FFLYLFQRWLRQVRIGLIIHUHQFH rooted in daily life rather than representation? Approaching Difference 7KLV ERRN IRFXVHV RQ /RQGRQHUV¶ UHVSRQVHV WR WKH GLYHUVLW\ RI WKH PHWURSROLV and to the impact of the wider world within the city, emphasizing daily practice over textual depiction. I will use the term “difference” throughout these pages to UHIHUWRWKHWRWDOLW\RIFULWHULDIRUGH¿QLQJZKREHORQJHGDQGZKRGLGQRW,ZLOO DOVRUHIHUWRFHUWDLQ³PDUNHUV´RIGLIIHUHQFHWRWKHIDXOWOLQHVE\ZKLFKSHRSOH delineated such belonging and exclusion. I have privileged the investigation of WKRVHPDUNHUVRIGLIIHUHQFHFRPPRQO\IRXQGLQIULFWLRQRYHULPPLJUDWLRQZKLOH attempting to move beyond a narrow history of the city’s stranger communities. I also aim to sidestep attempts to quantify xenophobia and its relationship to periods of crisis or tension, instead examining the ways in which Londoners conceived of difference in good times as well as bad, in daily discord over issues such as taxation, civic citizenship and guild membership. The wider history of difference is itself potentially vast, encompassing almost every aspect of the cultural history of early modern identity.29 This project is a small part of that much larger enterprise, 26 ,\HQJDUH[SOLFLWO\IUDPHVKHUH[DPLQDWLRQRIDWWLWXGHVWRZDUGVVNLQFRORULQWHUPV of difference, investigating the early modern origins of emerging notions of race; see Iyengar, Shades of Difference. 27 See Richard Helgerson’s Forms of Nationhood (Chicago, IL and London, 1992) for an exploration of Elizabethan national identity in all of these areas. 28 Jean E. Howard, Theater of a City: The Places of London Comedy, 1598–1642 (Philadelphia, PA, 2007), pp. 28, 10. 29 In this much wider sense, explorations of everything from attitudes towards poverty to the history of the body constitute part of the history of difference. For recent examples of such scholarship, see Patricia Crawford (ed.), Blood, Bodies and Families in Early Modern

Introduction

9

one that aims to explore how the inhabitants of London conceived of their city’s heterogeneity. $Q\ KLVWRU\ RI GLIIHUHQFH PXVW E\ GH¿QLWLRQ EH FRPSDUDWLYH$V D UHVXOW DOWKRXJK PXFK RI WKLV ERRN GLVFXVVHV UHVSRQVHV WR WKH FLW\¶V ODUJHVW DQG PRVW visible immigrant groups, French and Dutch Protestants, it places them in the larger context of both Jewish immigration and the domestic impact of the captivity of Christians in Muslim lands. In doing so, I hope to reveal fault lines that are invisible when attention is paid to only one community. I aim, in short, to LQYHVWLJDWHPDUNHUVRIGLIIHUHQFHWKDWWUDQVFHQGVLQJOHQDWLRQDORUUHOLJLRXVJURXSV paying attention to early modern notions of alienness rather than Frenchness or Dutchness, for example, while locating singular phenomena such as antiSemitism within the context of broader attitudes towards strangers. London’s Jewish community remained small even after the formal readmission of Jews in 1656.30 Yet the reception of Jewish immigrants, while colored by an idiosyncratic religious anti-Semitism, overlapped substantially with a prior century of antialien sentiment, shedding light on broader patterns of difference. The city’s global connections also structured its inhabitants’ notions of belonging and exclusion. Here I use the Islamic world as my case study. Building upon recent scholarship on the captivity of Christians in Muslim lands, I show how even distant Barbary or 7XUNH\VKDSHGVWHUHRW\SHVRIDUDQJHRIJURXSVZLWKLQ(QJODQGDQGLWVPHWURSROLV Placing Christian strangers, Jews and the Islamic world in conjunction allows us to see the ties between otherwise discrete antipathies. Focus on daily practice effaces some of London’s communities while emphasizing others. Because of my attention to occupational and economic issues, and particularly civic citizenship and guild membership, French and Dutch 3URWHVWDQWV DUH WKH PRVW SURPLQHQW JURXS LQ WKH ¿UVW SDUW RI WKLV VWXG\ DV WKH\ were by far the largest immigrant community). Irish, Welsh and Scots, though present in the metropolis and themselves sometimes cast as “other,” recede into WKHEDFNJURXQGVXEVXPHGZLWKLQWKHODUJHUFDWHJRU\RI³IRUHLJQHU´31 I have found England (Harlow, 2004); Henry French and Jonathan Barry (eds.), Identity and Agency in England, 1500–1800%DVLQJVWRNHDQG1HZ
10

Diversity and Difference in Early Modern London

little reference to the non-English peoples of the British Isles in civic discussions DERXW WKH VWDWXV DQG GH¿QLWLRQ RI VWUDQJHUV )RUHLJQHUV WKHPVHOYHV RI (QJOLVK origin), although present here, play only a minor role, evident in discussions of infringement by those not yet citizens of the City, yet eclipsed by the emphasis that the sources place on aliens. Similarly, while London played host to a population of Africans and Afro-Britons from the sixteenth century on, my focus on the domestic impact of Africa itself is limited to the Maghreb. While people of sub-Saharan birth and descent certainly resided in London, “living intimately among its metropolitan SRSXODWLRQ´WKHEODFNDUFKLYDOSUHVHQFHLVDIUXVWUDWLQJO\OLPLWHGRQHLWVLPSDFW RQWKHFLW\¶VRFFXSDWLRQDODQGHFRQRPLFGLVSXWHVGLI¿FXOWWRGHWHFW32

Essex Institute Historical Collections, 3, 1975: 267–89; Nicholas P. Canny, “The Ideology of English Colonization from Ireland to America,” William and Mary Quarterly, 30, 1973: 575–98) and English anti-Catholicism (for example, Ethan Shagan, “Constructing Discord: Ideology, Propaganda, and English Responses to the Irish Rebellion of 1641,” Journal of British Studies±.DWKOHHQ01RRQDQ³µ7KH&UXHOO3UHVVXUHRI an Enraged, Barbarous People’: Irish and English Identity in Seventeenth-century Policy and Propaganda,” Historical Journal± 0DUN6WR\OHKDVDOVRSRLQWHG to the importance of anti-Cornish sentiment during the English Civil War; see M.J. Stoyle, “‘Pagans or Paragons?’: Images of the Cornish During the English Civil War,” English Historical Review, 111 (1996): 299–323. His Soldiers and Strangers discusses the role of British ethnic diversity in the Civil War, and includes a chapter on Continental combatants. 32 Habib, Black Lives SS ± ,PWLD] +DELE KDV FRXQWHG  UHIHUHQFHV WR EODFN Elizabethans in London, with a further 121 citations for the period 1603–77; ibid., pp. 115, 188. See ch. 2 and 3 of Black LivesIRUDGHWDLOHGGLVFXVVLRQRIWKHEODFNSUHVHQFHLQ (OL]DEHWKDQDQG6WXDUW/RQGRQ)RUWKH(OL]DEHWKDQSHULRGHYLGHQFHRIEODFN/RQGRQHUV LVVLJQL¿FDQWO\ZHLJKWHGWRZDUGVSDULVKVRXUFHVZKLOH³WKHUHLVQRWDVLQJOHUHFRUGLQWKH Elizabethan period that shows an African in an independent professional capacity”; ibid., pp. 115, 78. The seventeenth century, he suggests, followed a period of “benign neglect FRQGXFLYHWREODFNVHWWOHPHQWDQGLQWHJUDWLRQ´ZLWK³DVXEVHTXHQWRQHRISRVVHVVLRQDQG enslavement”; ibid., p. 190. Adopting Roger Finlay and Beatrice Shearer’s method of gauging the population of London absent from parish bills of mortality, Habib suggests WKHQHHGWRLQÀDWHWKH(OL]DEHWKDQDUFKLYDOGDWDE\DIDFWRURIWHQSRVLWLQJ³DSRVVLEOHUHDO ¿JXUHRIEODFNSHRSOHLQ(OL]DEHWKDQ/RQGRQ´LELGS,WVKRXOGEHQRWHGWKDW this assumes that the proportion of Londoners of African descent mirrored what Finlay DQG 6KHDUHU WHUP WKH FLW\¶V ³ÀRDWLQJ SRSXODWLRQ´ SHRSOH ZKR ³VWD\HG LQ WKH FDSLWDO IRU short periods for a great variety of reasons,” and that this held true for the entire period of Elizabeth’s reign; Finlay and Shearer, “Population Growth,” pp. 46–8. For a detailed GLVFXVVLRQRIWKHGLI¿FXOWLHVLQKHUHQWLQJDXJLQJERWK/RQGRQ¶VWRWDOSRSXODWLRQDQGWKH QXPEHURIDOLHQVSUHVHQWLQWKHPHWURSROLVVHH&KDSWHUEHORZ3DXO*ULI¿WKVDOVRQRWHV WKHSUHVHQFHRIEODFN/RQGRQHUVLQLost Londons, pp. 73–4.

Introduction

11

Sources The daily practice of difference in early modern London left most traces in WKH YDULRXV LQVWLWXWLRQV RI WKH &LW\ IURP WKH RI¿FHV DQG RUJDQL]DWLRQV RI FLYLF government such as the lord mayor, Court of Aldermen and Court of Common Council to the various guilds of the metropolis. Consequently, these provide the EXON RI P\ VRXUFHV 7KH &RUSRUDWLRQ RI /RQGRQ 5HFRUG 2I¿FH KROGV WKH PRVW VLJQL¿FDQW &LW\ JRYHUQPHQW UHFRUGV33 The Journals of the Court of Common Council and the Repertories of the Court of Aldermen contain the minutes of the meetings of both bodies. The Remembrancia of the lord mayor of the City of /RQGRQPHDQZKLOHGHWDLOVWKHDFWLRQVRIWKHPD\RU¶VRI¿FHSURYLGLQJPDQXVFULSW copies of incoming and outgoing correspondence. All three of these sources contain petitions from the commoners of the City, together with letters from various guilds and communication from the Crown, Privy Council and other notables. Most outstanding guild records are held at the Guildhall Library.34 Because RI D OHQJWK\ FRQWURYHUV\ VXUURXQGLQJ WKH LQÀXHQFH RI DOLHQV WRJHWKHU ZLWK WKH prominent role of strangers within the cloth industry, I concentrate most heavily RQWKHRUGLQDQFHDQGUHFRUGERRNVRIWKH:HDYHUV¶&RPSDQ\DOWKRXJK,DOVRXVHD small number of other guild sources. This controversy, simmering from the 1590s WRWKH5HVWRUDWLRQZDVDWLWVPRVWLQWHQVHGXULQJWKH¿UVWKDOIRIWKHVHYHQWHHQWK century, and it is upon those decades that I focus.35 I will argue throughout this study that the Crown’s view of difference diverged substantially from that of the City. Not only did central government tend to encourage LPPLJUDWLRQ LWV RI¿FHUV DOVR SUDFWLFHG D PD[LPDOLVW QRWLRQ RI EHORQJLQJ WKDW played itself out in a variety of arenas. I have relied most heavily on the records of the Privy Council in order to gauge the role of the Crown. My use of these records mirrors the time frame of that for civic sources, and indeed, the Remembrancia and the Council’s minutes often provide both sides of the conversation between the Privy Council and the lord mayor. During the Interregnum the Council of 6WDWHZRUNLQJLQWKHQDPHRIWKHORUGSURWHFWRUUHSODFHGWKH3ULY\&RXQFLO,KDYH continued my investigation through the 1650s using these sources in place of those of their predecessor. Indeed, I will argue that in matters of belonging both councils had a similar relationship to the City. Other sources relating to the actions of central government are scattered through miscellaneous state papers. I have also used a number of manuscript collections relating to both Crown and City at the Henry E. Huntington Library (San Marino, California), particularly a series of petitions collected in the papers 33

See Philip E. Jones and Raymond Smith, A Guide to the Records in the Corporation RI/RQGRQ5HFRUGV2I¿FHDQGWKH*XLOGKDOO/LEUDU\0XQLPHQW5RRP (London, 1951). 34 See City Livery Companies and Related Organisations: A Guide to Their Archives in the Guildhall Library, 3rd edn. (London, 1989). 35 Joseph Ward has discussed this case in detail as part of a larger investigation of the ÀH[LELOLW\RIFLYLFLQVWLWXWLRQVVHH:DUGMetropolitan Communities, ch. 6.

12

Diversity and Difference in Early Modern London

of Lord Chancellor Ellesmere.36 Manuscripts in the British Library have also served as a supplement (mainly the Additional and Lansdowne MSS), as have both parliamentary journals and, when outlining civic awareness of the Islamic world, a small number of parish records. Many of the petitions that I have used from these collections were written HLWKHU DQRQ\PRXVO\ RU LQ WKH QDPH RI DQ DPELJXRXVO\ GH¿QHG ³FRPPRQDOLW\´ Consequently, although I often use them to refer to the opinions of an equally VOLSSHU\SRSXODWLRQRI³/RQGRQHUV´LWLVLQPRVWFDVHVH[WUHPHO\GLI¿FXOWWRSRLQW to their exact authorship. As will be seen, at times the hierarchy of a guild or WKH JRYHUQRUV RI WKH &LW\ HYRNHG WKH QDPH RI WKH ZLGHU SRSXODWLRQ RI IUHHPHQ DV MXVWL¿FDWLRQ IRU WKHLU DFWLRQ RU LQDFWLRQ :KHQ TXRWLQJ IURP DQ DQRQ\PRXV petition, I plead guilty to using the terms “Londoner” or “commonality” at face value. Readers should interpret this in a corporate sense, to refer not to the sum population of the metropolis, but rather to the freemen of the City or members of the particular guild from whence the petition originated. $OWKRXJKGUDPDWLFZRUNVSURYLGHVRPHRIRXUEHVWVRXUFHVIRUWKHH[SORUDWLRQ of national stereotypes, here I use them only as a starting point for the investigation RIEURDGHUSDWWHUQVRIH[FOXVLRQ3OD\VVXFKDV7KRPDV'HNNHU¶VThe Shoemaker’s Holiday and William Haughton’s Englishmen for my Money contain notoriously FRPLFSRUWUD\DOVRILPPLJUDQWV:KHQ'HNNHU¶V5RZODQG/DF\GLVJXLVHVKLPVHOI as the Dutch Hans Meulter, he provides an opportunity for the performance of what (QJOLVK DXGLHQFHV ZRXOG KDYH SHUFHLYHG DV VSHFL¿FDOO\ 'XWFK WUDLWV SULPDULO\ GUXQNHQQHVV7KLVDOVRDOORZVKLPWRVSHDNDFRPLFVWDJH'XWFKHQWHULQJLQRQH VFHQHVLQJLQJ³'HUZDVHHQERUHYDQ*HOGHUODQG)UROLFNVLE\HQ+HZDVDOV GURQFN KH FROG Q\HW VWDQG XSVROFH VH E\HQ´37 The central character of Henry Glapthorne’s 1635 The Hollander also embodies the many stereotypical Dutch FKDUDFWHULVWLFVIRXQGLQHDUOLHUFRPHGLHV³KHORYHVDOFRKROKHLVIDWKHVSHDNV EURNHQ(QJOLVKDQGKHLVIDUIURPEULJKW´38 And the clown Frisco in Haughton’s Englishmen for my Money pithily derides three national groups when he states that ³SLJVDQG)UHQFKPHQVSHDNRQHODQJXDJH´WKDWEHIRUHVSHDNLQJ'XWFKKHPXVW KDYHKLV³PRXWKIXOORIPHDW¿UVW´DQGWKDWKHNQRZVDQ,WDOLDQRQVLJKWE\³D wanton eye, pride in his apparel, and the devil in his countenance.”39 Playing for laughs, these plays also catered to their audiences’ preconceptions, shedding light on widely held assumptions about England’s Continental neighbors. 36 See Guide to British Historical Manuscripts in the Huntington Library (San Marino, CA, 1982). 37 7KRPDV'HNNHUThe Shoemaker’s Holiday, ed. R.L. Smallwood and Stanley W. Wells (Manchester and Baltimore, MD, 1979), 4.42–5. References are to scene and line. 38 A.J. Hoenselaars, Images of Englishmen and Foreigners in the Drama of Shakespeare and His Contemporaries: A Study of Stage Characters and National Identity in English Renaissance Drama, 1558–1642 (Rutherford, NJ and London, 1992), p. 204. I am grateful to Marianne Montgomery for bringing this text to my attention. 39 William Haughton, Englishmen for my Money (London, 1616), sig. A4v.

Introduction

13

%XW ZKDW DERXW RWKHU PDUNHUV RI GLIIHUHQFH WKRVH WKDW WUDQVFHQGHG QDWLRQDO stereotypes? Glapthorne describes Sconce, his “Hollander,” as “a gallant naturalized Dutchman” yet elsewhere suggests that he was born in England to a Dutch father.40 These facts are relatively unimportant in the play itself, which emphasizes what we might call Sconce’s “Dutchface,” the stage performance of imputed comic Dutch traits.41 Yet in its hints of his provenance the play mutedly points to English criteria for exclusion that, I will suggest, are vitally important beyond the stage, that of parental descent and, through the course of the seventeenth century, its intersection with naturalization. Sconce, if born in England after 1608, is an English subject. But as we will see, in the City of London both the English-born children of strangers and, ultimately, naturalized immigrants form a population that, though legally English, remain cast as strangers. And this is a point of friction not just with Londoners of immigrant parentage but also with the Crown, hinting at multiple notions of Englishness.42 I will, then, use dramatic sources, along with other printed texts such as travel and captivity narratives, largely as a jumping-off SRLQWPRYLQJEH\RQGWKHGLVFXVVLRQRIQDWLRQDOVWHUHRW\SHVWRH[DPLQHPDUNHUV of difference that were rooted in practice rather than performance and that tended to transcend adherence to individual groups. The Engines of Difference Early modern London was a nexus, a place where the local, national and international intersected. The city faced both large-scale migration from elsewhere in the British Isles and immigration from abroad. These circumstances shaped day-to-day life in the city, and daily life shaped the way Londoners constructed GLIIHUHQFH /RQGRQ¶V VWDWXV DV D PDMRU SRUW H[SRVHG LWV SHRSOH WR LQÀXHQFH from overseas, whether English mariners returning from as close as France or as far as Virginia, or sailors who themselves hailed from abroad.43 And although immigrants from beyond the shores of the British Isles also settled in other cities 40 Henry Glapthorne, The Hollander (London, 1640), sig. A2v; sig. B4r. See also Hoenselaars, Images of Englishmen and Foreigners, pp. 203–4. 41 In adopting the term “Dutchface” here, I borrow from the vast literature on ³EODFNIDFH´DQGLWVFRUROODULHVLQWKHPRGHUQ8QLWHG6WDWHV6HHIRUH[DPSOH:7/KDPRQ Raising Cain: Blackface Performance from Jim Crow to Hip Hop (Cambridge, MA, 1998); .U\VW\Q 5 0RRQ Yellowface: Creating the Chinese in American Popular Music and Performance, 1850s–1920s1HZ%UXQVZLFN1-  42 Sconce’s Englishness followed from Calvin v. Smith, a case brought to the Court of .LQJ¶V%HQFKLQ6HHEnglish Reports, ed. Alexander Wood Renton et al. (176 vols., London, 1900–1930), vol. 77, p. 377. The implications of this are discussed in detail in Chapter 3 below. 43 Claire Schen details the solicitation of aid by marooned sailors in “Constructing the Poor.”

Diversity and Difference in Early Modern London

14

OLNH1RUZLFKWKHFDSLWDOZDVWKHPDLQGHVWLQDWLRQIRUQHZDUULYDOV44 Meanwhile, the city’s explosive demographic growth pressured medieval institutions of civic JRYHUQPHQWWRFRPHWRJULSVZLWKDQLQFUHDVLQJO\GHQVHDQGÀXLGSRSXODWLRQDV ZHOO DV WKH JURZLQJ LQÀXHQFH RI WKH VXEXUEV EH\RQG WKH PHGLHYDO ZDOOV45 The expansion of the metropolis, combined with new patterns of immigration, would KDYHDPDUNHGHIIHFWRQHVWDEOLVKHGQRWLRQVRIGLIIHUHQFHDQGEHORQJLQJ The ways in which Londoners conceived of these changing surroundings call our attention to the power of the quotidian in the creation of identity and the practice of exclusion. Access to civic citizenship, a theme that runs throughout this study, provides an example of how daily institutional practice structured larger patterns RIGLIIHUHQFH7KH³IUHHGRPRIWKHFLW\´DVLWZDVDOVRNQRZQZDVDUJXDEO\WKH PRVWREYLRXVPDUNHURIEHORQJLQJLQWKHHDUO\PRGHUQPHWURSROLVVHUYLQJDVWKH gateway to becoming a Londoner.46 Civic citizenship was the basis for political participation in the City’s government and, because it was intimately tied to guild membership, was also closely bound to a person’s degree of occupational independence. Because the freedom was most commonly open only to males who had completed apprenticeships within the City of London, a person arriving from DVIDUD¿HOGDV8WUHFKWRUDVFORVHDV0LOH(QGZDVGHVHUYLQJRIHTXDOH[FOXVLRQ 7KH&LW\ZDVKRPHWRSHRSOHIURP(VVH[DQG
Norwich is discussed extensively throughout Yungblut, Strangers. London’s population reached 200,000 in 1600, up from 50,000 a century earlier. %\WKHSRSXODWLRQZRXOGUHDFKDWOHDVWVHH3DXO*ULI¿WKVDQG0DUN-HQQHU (eds.), Londinopolis: Essays in the Cultural and Social History of Early Modern London 0DQFKHVWHUDQG1HZ
Introduction

15

VWUDQJHUVWREHFRPHFLWL]HQV7KHIULFWLRQFDXVHGE\WKLVJLYHDQGWDNHUHYHDOVWKH many ways in which Londoners disputed difference, for in some cases there was no consensus about why strangers were problematic or, indeed, who a stranger actually was. Could the authorities justify excluding an alien who came with the SHUVRQDOUHFRPPHQGDWLRQRIWKHNLQJ":KDWDERXWVRPHRQHZKRKDGEHHQPDGHD denizen? Did loyalty and industriousness justify admission? At a more fundamental level, were you a stranger if your parents were aliens, even if you yourself were born in London? Was one alien grandparent enough to exclude someone from the freedom, or from guild membership? If not, was their Englishness still open to question? 0HWURSROLWDQPDUNHUVVXFKDVWKHIUHHGRPRIWKH&LW\KHOSXVWRVHHWKHZLGHU ZD\V LQ ZKLFK /RQGRQHUV GH¿QHG EHORQJLQJ DQG HQDFWHG H[FOXVLRQ 7KH VDPH is true of controversies in other areas seemingly divorced from the study of difference, from guild membership to taxation. When civic authorities treated the English-born children of strangers as de facto aliens by denying them admission to the freedom, this putative alien status then entailed a different rate of taxation. Controversies over the payment of taxes and customs become fertile ground for the study of both national and civic identity. And these further areas of friction bring to light a whole host of images, stereotypes, obsessions and concerns that transcend particular religious or national groups. Freedom, guild membership and other areas of daily civic practice shine a powerful light on the many ways in which Londoners determined the boundaries of belonging. 3UDFWLFHVVSHFL¿FWR/RQGRQVXFKDVWKHDSSOLFDWLRQRIWKHIUHHGRPDOVROHG WR D PDUNHG GLVSDULW\ EHWZHHQ &URZQ DQG &LW\ RYHU PDWWHUV RI GLIIHUHQFH7KH Crown consistently favored immigrants and their progeny.48 Civic authorities, on the other hand, repeatedly rejected the notion that those from abroad and their FKLOGUHQFRXOGEHORQJ7KLVSDWWHUQPLJKWVXJJHVWWKDWDIRUZDUGWKLQNLQJFHQWUDO government acted in the economic best interests of the nation (by, for example, encouraging new industries brought by immigrants), while an atavistic City sought to defend its archaic medieval privileges and institutions. However, both Crown DQG&LW\RIWHQDUWLFXODWHGWKHLUFRQÀLFWLQJDFWLRQVLQWKHVDPHWHUPVPRVWQRWDEO\ those implied by mercantilist economic thought, seeing immigrants as either a WKUHDW RU D EHQH¿W IRU VWULNLQJO\ VLPLODU UHDVRQV 7KH &LW\ PLJKW FRPSODLQ WKDW Jews or Dutch Protestants subverted progressive measures such as the Navigation Acts with their nefarious actions; the Crown might encourage the settlement of either because they increased the net wealth of the realm. Yet both sides favored or opposed the alien presence in the name of the improvement of the realm, citing similar reasons for their position. And in doing so, they articulated opposing notions of belonging. 48

/DXUD+XQW<XQJEOXW¶VUHFHQWZRUNDPSO\GHPRQVWUDWHVWKH(OL]DEHWKDQJRYHUQPHQW¶V FRQVLVWHQWVXSSRUWIRULPPLJUDWLRQWKH&URZQVHHNLQJ³WRIRUPXODWHSROLFLHVZKLFKZRXOG PD[LPL]H WKH RSSRUWXQLW\ DIIRUGHG E\ WKH SUHVHQFH RI ODUJH QXPEHUV RI VNLOOHG DOLHQV´ This was countered, she suggests, by a popular xenophobia “perhaps caused and certainly exacerbated by the fear of commercial competition”; Yungblut, Strangers, p. 113.

16

Diversity and Difference in Early Modern London

The larger relationship between Crown and City was both complex and far from harmonious. Depending upon the issue in question, civic and central government could operate in broad concert with each other, with acrimony, or as was the case in the 1640s, as open adversaries. Friction between City and Crown over matters of difference is a central theme of this study. Yet while the Crown tended to view KHWHURJHQHLW\DVDQRSSRUWXQLW\DQGWKH&LW\VDZLWDVDWKUHDWLWLVGLI¿FXOWWR transpose this long-standing disparity onto a larger narrative of relations between the two.49 ,QVWHDG ZH VKRXOG SD\ FORVH DWWHQWLRQ WR WKH ÀRZ RI SRZHU EHWZHHQ civic and central government. This was fraught with contradiction at the best of WLPHV/RQGRQ¶VJRYHUQRUVVRXJKWWREHQH¿WIURPUR\DOPXQL¿FHQFH\HWUHPDLQHG alert to citizens’ accusations that they were failing to protect civic privileges.50 Such a balancing act shaped responses to the diversity of the metropolis. Civic largesse towards strangers might infringe upon existing expectations, practices, traditions and sources of revenue, tempering acceptance of heterogeneity. Yet the Crown, for reasons of patronage or expediency, often exerted its own pressures on the City for greater openness. Such differences emerged from the exigencies of daily practice, a result of divergent institutional interests and variations in jurisdictional scope. Neither Crown nor City acted from a set of consistent policies. At times the Privy Council sided with the civic government against the interests of strangers and their children, even as its larger actions tended to favor immigrants and their progeny. Similarly, aliens experienced degrees of practical tolerance from civic bodies even as those same institutions generally responded to difference with suspicion. Some from stranger families rose to positions of power and privilege in the metropolis. Sir John Leman, who became lord mayor of London in 1616, was the grandson of a Flemish refugee. Yet such immigrant success stories should not blind us to broader SDWWHUQV/HPDQ¶VWHQXUHLQRI¿FHFRLQFLGHVZLWKDSHULRGZKHQFLYLFDXWKRULWLHV routinely treated the English-born children of strangers as if they, too, were aliens.

49 ,WLVIRUH[DPSOHGLI¿FXOWWRVHHIULFWLRQEHWZHHQFLYLFDQGFHQWUDOJRYHUQPHQW over immigration in the 1620s and 1630s as in any way foreshadowing the Civil War. +LVWRULDQVKDYHORQJWHQGHGWRGRZQSOD\FRQÀLFWEHWZHHQ/RQGRQDQGWKH&URZQLQDOOEXW the years immediately preceding hostilities. Valerie Pearl has argued that as late as 1641 the Courts of Aldermen and Common Council were split between Royalist and Parliamentarian sympathizers, the latter gaining power only the following year; see Valerie Pearl, London and the Outbreak of the Puritan Revolution: City Government and National Politics, 1625–43 (London, 1961), pp. 276–7. However, Robert Brenner has pointed to the rifts within London’s mercantile elite underlying these divisions in civic government; see Robert Brenner, 0HUFKDQWVDQG5HYROXWLRQ&RPPHUFLDO&KDQJH3ROLWLFDO&RQÀLFWDQG/RQGRQ¶V Overseas Traders, 1550–1653 (Princeton, NJ, 1993). As Chapter 3 below will show, in issues pertaining to immigrants and their offspring, the Commonwealth’s relationship with the City echoed that of its royal predecessors. 50 For a detailed discussion of the complex relationship between Crown and City, see Archer, Pursuit of Stability, pp. 32–9.

Introduction

17

$V LQ RXU RZQ WLPH WKH SRZHU DQG SURVSHULW\ RI VRPH WRRN SODFH DPLGVW WKH ongoing exclusion of others.51 An examination of early modern metropolitan difference calls into question the idea that heterogeneity was something encountered “out there,” during the course of overseas expansion, and only later imported during the eclipse of empire.52 Such a view remains oddly tenacious, implicit in assertions that religion was the prime arena of early modern difference.53 It also surfaces more broadly in contemporary debates over immigration that frame English multiculturalism as a recent situation. Yet in the City of London the wider world played a vital role in ordering inhabitants’ views of a variety of peoples. Extensive awareness of the captivity of Christians in North Africa and elsewhere ensured that Muslim lands were very much present in the minds of Londoners.54 Responses to requests for DLGWRFDSWLYHVUHÀHFWHGEURDGHUGLYLVLRQVEHWZHHQFLYLFDQGFHQWUDOJRYHUQPHQW in matters of difference. This was just one way in which the meeting of near and far ensured the mingling of stereotypes. Views of distant Muslims, of captive supplicants from Greece or Hungary, of new Jewish immigrants and of the more familiar French and Dutch Protestant community all intersected, contributing to the ways in which the residents of England’s metropolis responded to the diversity around them. The story of difference is also the story of Englishness. By examining attitudes towards belonging in the early modern metropolis we can see not just the ways in which the people of the city excluded, but the ways in which such exclusion 51 6HH 5RVHPDU\ :HLQVWHLQ ³7KH 0DNLQJ RI D /RUG 0D\RU 6LU -RKQ /HPDQ (1544–1632): The Integration of a Stranger Family,” Proceedings of the Huguenot Society of London, 24/4 (1986): 316–24. 52 Tessa Watt, in her study of the religious content of cheap print, suggests that the popular assimilation of encounters with the New World was a slow process, pointing to the OLPLWHGFLUFXODWLRQRIZRUNVRQWKH$PHULFDV6HH7HVVD:DWWCheap Print and Popular Piety, 1550–1640, Cambridge Studies in Early Modern British History (Cambridge, 1991), S  )RU IXUWKHU DWWHPSWV WR JDXJH (XURSHDQ DZDUHQHVV RI WKH $PHULFDV VHH .DUHQ 2UGDKO.XSSHUPDQHG America in European Consciousness, 1493–1750 (Chapel Hill, NC, 1995). 53 Frances Dolan, for example, argues that “the most hotly contested differences in the early modern period were those within Christianity”; Frances E. Dolan, Whores of Babylon: Catholicism, Gender, and Seventeenth-century Print Culture (Ithaca, NY, 1999), S:KLOHLWLVKDUGWRWDNHLVVXHZLWKWKLVVWDWHPHQWIRFXVRQHDUO\PRGHUQUHOLJLRXV FRQÀLFWFDQKDYHWKHHIIHFWRIHIIDFLQJRWKHUPDUNHUVRIGLIIHUHQFH 54 Both Nabil Matar and Linda Colley have recently highlighted the implications of early modern Ottoman and North African power for narratives of British and European LPSHULDO VWUHQJWK DV SDUW RI WKHLU ZLGHU ZRUN RQ FDSWLYLW\ LQ JHQHUDO VHH LQ SDUWLFXODU 1DELO0DWDULQWURGXFWLRQWR'DQLHO-9LWNXVDQG1,0DWDUHGV Piracy, Slavery, and Redemption: Barbary Captivity Narratives from Early Modern England1HZ
18

Diversity and Difference in Early Modern London

PDUNHGWKHERXQGDULHVRIZKDWLWPHDQWWREHD/RQGRQHUDQGZKDWLWPHDQWWR be English. And because difference was always contextual, never monolithic, the ways in which Londoners practiced exclusion, and the degree to which these practices diverged from the actions of central government, hint at multiple forms of national identity. By describing patterns of difference and degrees of openness to heterogeneity, I paint a picture of a civic version of belonging that diverged substantially from that practiced by the Crown. The City’s authorities practiced DQLGLRV\QFUDWLFFLYLF(QJOLVKQHVVGH¿QHGDORQJQDUURZOLQHVDQGYHU\GLIIHUHQW from that which emerged from the actions of central government. 'XULQJ WKH FRXUVH RI WKHLU GDLO\ DFWLRQV /RQGRQHUV GH¿QHG ZKR EHORQJHG DQG ZKR GLG QRW ,Q JXLOGV FRXQFLO PHHWLQJV ZRUNVKRSV SHWLWLRQV DQG RQ WKH street itself, the people of the metropolis pronounced the status of French and Dutch Protestants, their English-born children, Jewish immigrants, supplicants IURP(XURSH¶VERUGHUODQGVHYHQWKHSHRSOHRIGLVWDQW7XUNH\DQG1RUWK$IULFD That status was always relative, always dependent upon context, and the criteria that formed the basis for exclusion rarely applied to any single group. The civic authorities, in basing belonging on narrow criteria, emphasized an Englishness that was grounded in descent. It was not underwritten, as race would be, by biological or physical criteria, but it was nevertheless surprisingly tenacious. The elaboration of descent came in response to pressure from petitioners, from within WKHFLYLFDQGJXLOGKLHUDUFK\DQGDVDFRXQWHUWRWKH&URZQ¶VPXQL¿FHQFHWRZDUGV immigrants and increasing emphasis on an Englishness grounded in birth under WKH VRYHUHLJQW\ RI WKH NLQJ
Chapter 1

Setting the Stage: Finding a Place in Early Modern London

On 5 February 1572 Edwin Sandys, the bishop of London, examined a number of strangers apprehended in a search conducted under the supervision of the lord mayor, acting at the behest of the Privy Council. Sandys wished, in particular, to gauge the legitimacy of those immigrants who “pretend to be here for their conscience.”1 Among those examined was Hans Pemable of Antwerp, a goldsmith, ZKRKDGDUULYHGLQ(QJODQGWKUHHZHHNVSUHYLRXVO\³WRVHHNZRUNDQGDOVRIRU religion.” At the time of his examination he had “not joined himself to any church” QRUFRXOGKH³WHOOFHUWDLQO\ZKHUHWRKDYHZRUN´GXHWRWKHIDFWWKDW³KHLVQRW \HWVHWWOHG´3HPDEOHWHVWL¿HGWKDWLIKHZDVXQDEOHWR¿QGHPSOR\PHQWDQGMRLQD congregation he would “depart into France.”2 Twenty-one years later, one survey would count a total of 5,259 strangers within the various wards of the City of London with, presumably, many more in the wider metropolitan area.3 Hans Pemable was one of thousands of overseas immigrants in London. Some stayed to PDNHWKHFLW\WKHLUKRPHZKLOHRWKHUVGHSDUWHGIRUIXUWKHUGHVWLQDWLRQVZLWKLQWKH British Isles or returned to Continental Europe. 7KRVH ZKR FKRVH WR UHPDLQ LQ /RQGRQ VWUXJJOHG WR ¿QG D SODFH LQ WKH FLW\ This meant negotiating their way through an elaborate web of organizations, from guilds and churches to the courts and councils of civic and national government. )LQGLQJDSODFHPHDQW¿QGLQJDUROHDQGUROHV²RIRFFXSDWLRQFLYLFFLWL]HQVKLS DQG VXEMHFWKRRG²ZHUH JXDUGHG E\ D KRVW RI LQVWLWXWLRQV 7KH RI¿FHUV RI WKHVH institutions conferred belonging according to ancient rules, often granting H[FHSWLRQVRQO\RQDQLQGLYLGXDOEDVLVLQWKHIDFHRI¿QDQFLDOLQÀXHQFHRUSUHVVXUH IURP D SDWURQ 6XFK JDWHNHHSHUV EHVWRZHG EHORQJLQJ DQG HQDFWHG H[FOXVLRQ E\ virtue of the sum total of their many decisions, with the traditions of institutional practice guiding and shaping their choices.

1

National Archives, London, State Papers 12/85, no. 50, fol. 118r (hereafter TNA, SP). TNA, SP 12/85, no. 50, fol. 120v. See also Luu, Immigrants, pp. 110–11. Here Hans 3HPDEOHDSSHDUVDV³3HQLDEOH´EDVHGRQWUDQVFULSWLRQVLQ(UQHVW).LUNDQG5(*.LUN (eds.), Returns of Aliens Dwelling in the City and Suburbs of London, from the Reign of Henry VIII to That of James I, Huguenot Society of London, Quarto Series, vol. 10, part 2 $EHUGHHQ± S+RZHYHUH[DPLQDWLRQRIWKHPDQXVFULSWFRQ¿UPVWKDWWKLV appears to be a mistranscription. 3 Scouloudi, Returns, p. 127. 2

20

Diversity and Difference in Early Modern London

7KLV FKDSWHU DLPV WR GH¿QH WKH VWDJH XSRQ ZKLFK HDUO\ PRGHUQ /RQGRQHUV created difference. Before moving to the ways in which the inhabitants of the metropolis responded to the diversity around them, it is necessary to have an understanding of the arenas in which their responses occurred, together with the wider events that shaped the city’s heterogeneity. This will involve a discussion not just of the various institutions through which immigrants sought belonging and /RQGRQHUVDI¿UPHGRUGHQLHGLWEXWRIWKHQDWXUHDQGH[WHQWRIWKHFLW\LWVHOIRIWKH SHRSOHZKRFKRVHWRPDNHDOLIHWKHUHWKHLUUHDVRQVIRUGRLQJVRDQGWKHDYHQXHV open to them once they arrived. These details, however, constitute far more than EDFNJURXQG,WLVDFHQWUDOFRQWHQWLRQRIWKLVERRNWKDWGLIIHUHQFHZDVWKHFUHDWLRQ not simply of episodic acts of xenophobia, but of the practice of everyday life.4 An anti-immigrant riot was one way in which people could cast those in their midst as “other.” Yet civic policy, guild membership, rules of apprenticeship, instructions FRQFHUQLQJORRPRZQHUVKLSRUGHUVUHJDUGLQJKRXVLQJDQGWKHNHHSLQJRIVKRSV along with many other day-to-day actions, had at least as great an effect. Such PLQXWLDHVHUYHGDVWKHEXLOGLQJEORFNVIRUEHORQJLQJDQGH[FOXVLRQLQWKH&LW\ The Growth of London When Hans Pemable arrived in London in 1572 he would have found himself in a city in the midst of explosive growth. The population of London for this period UHPDLQVLQWKHZRUGVRI5R\3RUWHU³DPDWWHURILQIRUPHGJXHVVZRUN´DOWKRXJK its dramatic upward trajectory is undisputed.5 Not only were there no censuses LQ WKH VL[WHHQWK FHQWXU\ EXW WKH ¿JXUHV VXSSOLHG E\ KLVWRULDQV YDU\ GHSHQGLQJ on whether they include only those living within the city walls, the extramural areas within the City’s jurisdiction, or the wider suburbs that formed the larger metropolitan area. The areas under the control of City government, the 26 wards, extended beyond the medieval walls, forming an area often referred to as falling within the City’s “bars” (see Figure 1).6 Beyond this area of formal civic control IHOOH[WHQVLYHVXEXUEVVXFKDV0RRU¿HOGV6KRUHGLWFKDQG:DSSLQJ6RPHRIWKHVH existed under the jurisdiction of the City as manors, others were formally part of the counties of Middlesex and Surrey, while some fell under the control of the

4 A phrase borrowed from Michel de Certeau. See his The Practice of Everyday Life, WUDQV6WHYHQ)5HQGDOO%HUNHOH\&$  5 Roy Porter, London: A Social History (Cambridge, MA, 1995), p. 42. Norman Brett-DPHVZULWLQJLQVXJJHVWHGWKDWWKHH[DFWQXPEHUV³ZLOOSHUKDSVQHYHUEHNQRZQ´ lamenting that “it is rather typical of estimating the population of seventeenth-century London that one is forced to end a survey of the whole subject on a note of uncertainty”; Norman G. Brett-James, The Growth of Stuart London, London and Middlesex Archaeological Society (London, 1935), p. 513. 6 Rappaport, Worlds within Worlds, p. 62.

Setting the Stage: Finding a Place in Early Modern London

21

Crown or ecclesiastical authorities.72WKHUDUHDVOD\ZLWKLQWKHEDUV²ERWKLQVLGH DQG RXWVLGH WKH ZDOOV²\HW ZHUH H[HPSW IURP JRYHUQPHQW E\ WKH &LW\ 7KHVH “liberties,” often formerly areas of monastic control dissolved by Parliament LQ  ZHUH QRZ JRYHUQHG GLUHFWO\ E\ WKH &URZQ7KLV FRQIXVLQJ SDWFKZRUN FRPSOLFDWHVWKHGH¿QLWLRQRI/RQGRQLWVHOIOHDGLQJLQWXUQWRYDU\LQJ¿JXUHVIRU the capital’s population.8 Hans Pemable probably found himself in a metropolis of at least 100,000 souls. Although accurate statistics are almost impossible to come by, recent estimates provide a general picture of the size of London and its suburbs, along with the stunning growth that the city underwent during the period of this study. According to Roger Finlay and Beatrice Shearer, including the suburbs beyond the bars and factoring in the large number of temporary residents and transients, London probably housed around 120,000 people in 1550. By the end of the FHQWXU\WKDW¿JXUHZRXOGUHDFK,QDURXQGSHRSOHUHVLGHG in the metropolis, rising to a staggering 490,000 by 1700.9 Vanessa Harding has WDNHQ LVVXH ZLWK WKHVH QXPEHUV GHVFULELQJ WKH ¿JXUHV IRU WKH PLGVL[WHHQWK FHQWXU\DVRYHULQÀDWHGDQGWKRVHIRUWKHODWWHUKDOIRIWKHVHYHQWHHQWKFHQWXU\DV WRRORZ6KHVXJJHVWVDWHQWDWLYH¿JXUHIRU±RI±IRUWKH or 123 London parishes within the walls, the extramural liberties and Middlesex and Surrey included in the annual Bills of Mortality.10 'HUHN .HHQH PHDQZKLOH cites 80,000 for 1550 and largely echoes Finlay and Shearer’s numbers for 1600 and 1700.11 A seasoned traveler at the beginning of the seventeenth century would have found only two Western European cities of larger population: Paris (with 220,000 people) and Naples (281,000). London eclipsed both Mantua (120,000)

7

Ward, Metropolitan Communities, p. 9. The Crown had also sold some liberties to private individuals; see Rappaport, Worlds within Worlds, pp. 34–5. For a detailed discussion of the implications of varying GH¿QLWLRQVRIWKHPHWURSROLVIRUSRSXODWLRQHVWLPDWHVVHH9DQHVVD+DUGLQJ³7KH3RSXODWLRQ of London, 1550–1700: A Review of the Published Evidence,” London Journal, 15 (1990): 111–28. 9 )LQOD\DQG6KHDUHU¶V¿JXUHVDUHEDVHGRQSDULVKELOOVRIPRUWDOLW\+RZHYHUWKHVH GR QRW LQFOXGH WKH VL]HDEOH ³ÀRDWLQJ SRSXODWLRQ´ SHRSOH ZKR ³VWD\HG LQ WKH FDSLWDO IRU VKRUWSHULRGVIRUDJUHDWYDULHW\RIUHDVRQV´7KH\WKXVIXUWKHULQÀDWHWKH¿JXUHVSURYLGHG by parish records by 10 percent (and 20 percent during the Interregnum, due to the variable qualities of the registers); see Finlay and Shearer, “Population Growth,” pp. 46–8. 10 Harding, “Population of London,” p. 123. Her full statistics are included on p. 112, WDEOHZLWKDGH¿QLWLRQRI/RQGRQ¶VRUSDULVKHVGHSHQGLQJRQWKH\HDU RQS See ibid., p. 121 for her critique of Finlay and Shearer’s methodology. 11 'HUHN .HHQH ³*URZWK 0RGHUQLVDWLRQ DQG &RQWURO 7KH 7UDQVIRUPDWLRQ RI London’s Landscape, c. 1500–c. 1760,” Proceedings of the British Academy, 107 (2001): 7–8. See Luu, Immigrants, p. 34, for further discussion of these numbers. 8

Map of London’s wards and administrative boundaries (from Rappaport, Worlds Within Worlds, p. 33; reprinted with the permission of Cambridge University Press)

7KLV¿JXUHKDVLQWHQWLRQDOO\EHHQUHPRYHGIRUFRS\ULJKWUHDVRQV To view this image, please refer to the printed version of this book

Figure 1

This page has been left blank intentionally

Setting the Stage: Finding a Place in Early Modern London

23

and Venice (139,000).12 Within a period of 150 years, England’s capital underwent explosive growth, increasing at least fourfold in size.13 The rate of population growth in London during this period far outstripped that of England as a whole. While England increased its population by 24 percent between 1600 and 1650, London grew by 88 percent. Growth slowed during the QH[W¿IW\\HDUVEXWWKHVDPHGLVSDULW\LVHYLGHQW²DPHWURSROLWDQLQFUHDVHRI percent, compared to a national drop in population of 6 percent.14 Yet London was characterized by its high mortality, even during its period of most explosive JURZWK)RXURIWKH¿YHPDMRURXWEUHDNVRISODJXHLQWKHFLW\IURPWR NLOOHGDWOHDVWSHUFHQWRIWKHSRSXODWLRQ$QGDV)LQOD\DQG6KHDUHUQRWH³WKH absolute level of London mortality was probably rising towards the end of the seventeenth century,” even as the danger of plague decreased. Diseases endemic WRWKHFLW\¿OOHGWKHYDFXXPOHIWE\GHSDUWLQJSODJXHEDFLOOL2YHUFURZGLQJDQG VLFNQHVVFUHDWHGDVLWXDWLRQLQZKLFKPRUH/RQGRQHUVGLHGEHIRUHPDUULDJHWKDQQRW In the face of pestilence, whether sensational or prosaic, London’s population could not possibly be self-sustaining. The city’s explosive growth came from without.15 London grew because of English migrants, not Continental immigrants. The percentage of strangers in the city was always dwarfed by the number of residents ERUQHOVHZKHUHLQWKHUHDOP7KHPLJUDWLRQQHHGHGWRVXVWDLQ²OHWDORQHDFWXDOO\ LQFUHDVH²WKH FLW\¶V QXPEHUV LQ WKH IDFH RI LWV VWXQQLQJ PRUWDOLW\ FDPH IURP England itself. While aliens may have reached as much as 12.5 percent of the city’s population in 1553 (falling to around 5 percent forty years later), some estimates suggest that around one in eight English people surviving birth in the early modern period would eventually move to the metropolis.16 Most came to London to serve as apprentices and servants. The overwhelming number of apprentices were male, 90 percent of whom came from beyond the City. Of these, up to two-thirds arrived from a distance of eighty miles or more, mainly from rural areas, joined by many RWKHUVRIVLPLODUEDFNJURXQGVHHNLQJFDVXDOODERURXWVLGHRIWKHJXLOGV\VWHP17 :RPHQDOWKRXJKJHQHUDOO\SUHFOXGHGIURPDSSUHQWLFHVKLSVDOVRÀRFNHGWRWKH FLW\LQVHDUFKRIZRUNZKHWKHUDVGRPHVWLFVHUYDQWVRULQDYDULHW\RILQGHSHQGHQW 12

Rappaport, Worlds within Worlds, p. 4 n. 22. It is unclear whether or not these statistics include the wider metropolitan areas of the cities concerned. See also J. de Vries, European Urbanization 1500–1800 (Cambridge, MA, 1984), pp. 270–78. 13 For an innovative recent study of Londoners’ responses to this growth, including SROLFLHVUHODWLQJWRSHUFHSWLRQVRIFULPHDQGYDJUDQF\VHH*ULI¿WKVLost Londons. 14 Finlay and Shearer, “Population Growth,” p. 38. Here I am tentatively accepting )LQOD\DQG6KHDUHU¶V¿JXUHVIRUWKHVHYHQWHHQWKFHQWXU\RQWKHEDVLVWKDWWKHLUQXPEHUVIRU 1600 and 1700 remain within the range of historical consensus. 15 Ibid., pp. 48–50. 16 Luu, Immigrants, p. 92; Roger Finlay, Population and Metropolis: The Demography of London, 1580–1650, Cambridge Geographical Studies, no. 12 (Cambridge, 1981), p. 9. See pp. 25–30 below for a detailed discussion of the number of aliens in London. 17 Rappaport, Worlds within Worlds, pp. 77, 80–83.

24

Diversity and Difference in Early Modern London

WUDGHVUHO\LQJRQLQIRUPDOQHWZRUNVRIVXSSRUWUDWKHUWKDQFLYLFLQVWLWXWLRQVDQG guilds. England’s metropolis, then, served as a magnet for people from throughout WKHUHDOPVRPHVHHNLQJWKHLUIRUWXQHZLWKLQWKHIUDPHZRUNRIDSSUHQWLFHVKLSDQG service, others in search of casual or unregulated employment.18 Continental Immigration London had long attracted people from beyond the British Isles. Although Hans Pemable was part of a new surge of settlers from abroad in the second half of the sixteenth century, he and his thousands of cohorts followed closely in the footsteps of others. For centuries most new arrivals from the Continent had come from northern France and the Low Countries. Exceptions fell largely within the elite, VXFKDVWKH,WDOLDQEDQNHUVPRQH\OHQGHUVDQGPHUFKDQWVWKDW¿OOHGWKHYDFXXP left by the expulsion of the Jewish community in 1290 and the traders of the North *HUPDQ +DQVH ZKR URVH WR SURPLQHQFH LQ WKH ¿IWHHQWK FHQWXU\ $UWLVDQV DQG craftsmen, however, had usually arrived from immediately across the Channel. That they would continue to do so in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries is a sign of London’s place within a cross-Channel borderland region.19 Even without VSHDNLQJ D ZRUG RI (QJOLVK WKHQ 3HPDEOH ZRXOG SUREDEO\ KDYH EHHQ DEOH WR get by. In 1571 an estimated 61 percent of the city’s strangers had arrived from 'XWFK )OHPLVK DQG *HUPDQVSHDNLQJ DUHDV PRVW IURP WKH 1HWKHUODQGV DQG )ODQGHUV  )UHQFKVSHDNHUV PDGH XS WKH QH[W ODUJHVW JURXS DW  SHUFHQW 7KH trend, however, was towards more immigration from France, up to 34 percent E\  ZLWK 'XWFK )OHPLVK DQG *HUPDQVSHDNHUV GHFOLQLQJ WR  SHUFHQW20 :KDWHYHUWKHLUSRLQWRIRULJLQWKHVHQHZDUULYDOVOLNH(QJOLVKPLJUDQWVWRWKHFLW\ ZRXOGKDYHWDNHQDGYDQWDJHRILQIRUPDOQHWZRUNVRIDLGDQGDVVLVWDQFHSURYLGHG by those of common origin.

18 Laura Gowing, “‘The Freedom of the Streets’: Women and Social Space, 1560– ´LQ*ULI¿WKVDQG-HQQHUHGV Londinopolis, p. 132. For more on the role of service ZLWKLQ \RXWK FXOWXUH VHH ,OODQ .UDXVPDQ %HQ$PRV Adolescence and Youth in Early Modern England (New Haven, CT, 1994). Ben-Amos’s study focuses largely on Bristol. 19 Pettegree, Foreign Protestant Communities, pp. 9–14. See Philippe Dollinger, The German Hansa (Stanford, CA, 1970); Syvlia Thrupp, “Aliens in and around London in the Fifteenth Century,” in Philip E. Jones et al. (eds.), Studies in London History (London, 1969); M.E. Bratchel, “Alien Merchant Communities in London, 1500–1550” (Ph.D. diss., Cambridge University, 1974). All of these references are cited in Pettegree, Foreign Protestant Communities, pp. 9–11. 20 See Luu, Immigrants, p. 102, table 4.4, p. 103, table 4.5. The next largest groups LQZHUHWKRVHRIXQLGHQWL¿HGRULJLQSHUFHQW DQG,WDOLDQV6SDQLVKDQG3RUWXJXHVH (5 percent in total); ibid.

Setting the Stage: Finding a Place in Early Modern London

25

The Population of Strangers When Pemable arrived in the metropolis in 1572 his fellow strangers probably numbered around 6,500.21 This was up from about 3,000 in the City itself in 1500.227KHVH¿JXUHVZRXOGULVHVWHDGLO\LQWKHODWHVL[WHHQWKFHQWXU\UHDFKLQJD metropolitan total of over 7,000 by 1593.23 The early seventeenth century would see a decline in the number of aliens, possibly to fewer than 4,000 in the City and its suburbs by the 1630s.24 In the decades after 1650 these numbers would again rise rapidly, with tens of thousands of Huguenots arriving in England following renewed persecution in France.25 At the same time, the city’s population of VWUDQJHUVZRXOGGLYHUVLI\DV&RQWLQHQWDO3URWHVWDQWVZHUHMRLQHGE\-HZV*UHHNV Germans and others.26 The exact number of overseas immigrants in London is, however, extremely GLI¿FXOWWRJDXJHDYDLODEOHVRXUFHVGLIIHULQJZLGHO\LQVFRSHDQGUHOLDELOLW\7KH most comprehensive statistics for the alien population in Elizabethan and early 6WXDUW /RQGRQ FRPH IURP D VHULHV RI ³5HWXUQV RI 6WUDQJHUV´²GHWDLOHG VXUYH\V WDNHQDWWKHEHKHVWRIWKH&URZQWRJDXJHWKHQXPEHURIDOLHQVLQWKHFLW\&LYLF authorities conducted these counts from the 1560s to the 1630s, in some cases as a result of the anxieties caused by immigration.27 The 1593 Return, for example, followed complaints by the authorities that aliens infringed the livelihoods of the &LW\¶V ODZIXO ZRUNHUV287KH 5HWXUQV RI   DQG  WKH ¿QDO VXUYH\ OLNHZLVH DURVH IURP FRQFHUQ LQ WKH &LW\ DERXW WKH DOLHQ SRSXODWLRQ DQG HIIRUWV by central government to assess the size of London’s immigrant community). Although the City authorities enthusiastically coordinated the Returns at the Council’s behest, there was an added element of City–Crown tension by the time of Charles I’s reign. The later surveys aided the Crown’s attempts to regulate the City and, in particular, its fast-growing suburbs.297KH¿JXUHVSURYLGHGE\WKH5HWXUQV 21

Yungblut, Strangers, p. 23. Pettegree, Foreign Protestant Communities, p. 17. Although Pettegree does not explicitly state that these numbers refer only to the City of London proper, most of the PHWURSROLV¶VVXEXUEDQJURZWKWRRNSODFHODWHULQWKHVL[WHHQWKFHQWXU\ 23 Luu, Immigrants, p. 99; Scouloudi, Returns, p. 100. 24 Ibid. 25 Statt, Foreigners and Englishmen, pp. 28–9. 26 Ibid., pp. 29–30. See the following pages for a full discussion of these numbers. 27 6HH .LUN DQG .LUN Returns of Aliens; Scouloui, Returns. Counts were made in 1568, 1571, 1581, 1583, 1593, 1627, 1635 and 1639; see Luu, Immigrants, p. 25 n. 68. 28 Scouloudi, Returns, pp. 57–8. Initial complaints also named “foreigners” (that is, English from beyond the City) in the guilty party, though as protests grew they appear to have focused increasingly on strangers. 29 7KH VXUYH\ RI  ZDV E\ IDU WKH PRVW FRPSUHKHQVLYH DQG OLNH WKDW RI  counted not only heads of households, but also women, children and alien servants; see LELGSS±6HHDOVRLELGSIRUDEUHDNGRZQRIWKH5HWXUQ 22

Diversity and Difference in Early Modern London

26

are, however, problematic, whether in the manner in which authorities conducted WKHLU WDOOLHV XQYHUL¿HG RUDO WHVWLPRQ\  WKH FLUFXPVWDQFHV RI WKHLU SURGXFWLRQ RIWHQ WLPHV RI WHQVLRQ  WKH RPLVVLRQ RI VRPH DOLHQ ZRUNHUV DQG WKHLU YDU\LQJ geographical extent.307KHVHGLI¿FXOWLHVQRWZLWKVWDQGLQJWKH\SURYLGHVRPHRIWKH more comprehensive statistics available for London’s alien population. (DUOLHU¿JXUHVIRUWKHPHGLHYDOFLW\DUHEDVHGRQWD[LQIRUPDWLRQUDWKHUWKDQ formal counts, and indicate a smaller population. Two thousand strangers paid the alien subsidy of 1440.31 Paradoxically, the 1485 subsidy listed 1,600 contributors, while the number for 1541 had risen to 2,500.32 As Andrew Pettegree notes, however, because only adult males were liable for the subsidy and other privileged groups received exemptions, these numbers fall far short as an indicator of the UHDO SUHVHQFH RI DOLHQV LQ WKH &LW\ +H VXJJHVWV PXOWLSO\LQJ WKH VXEVLG\ ¿JXUHV by 2–2.5, giving numbers of “three thousand at the beginning of the sixteenth FHQWXU\´ DQG ³VRPHWKLQJ OLNH ¿YH RU VL[ WKRXVDQG E\ WKH HQG RI +HQU\ 9,,,¶V reign.”33$YDLODEOH¿JXUHVIRUWKHHDUO\WRPLG(OL]DEHWKDQSHULRGGLYHUJHZLOGO\ One survey of London, the liberties and Westminster in 1567 counted 3,324 aliens, while another of March 1568 gave a total of 9,302 for the same area. A count of 1571 listed 6,513 strangers for the City, its liberties and the suburbs with, two years later, a jump to 7,143 (possibly due to the impact of the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre in Paris during the previous year).34 The Return made a decade later, however, produced another drop, to 4,047 strangers. By 1593, the numbers in the metropolis had risen again, to 7,113, including 5,545 in the City itself.35 7DNHQDWIDFHYDOXHWKHHDUO\6WXDUWVWDWLVWLFVVXJJHVWDVLJQL¿FDQWUHGXFWLRQ in the numbers of strangers. While the Return of 1593 counted over 7,000 aliens in London, that of 1635 only lists 3,622.36:KDWDUHZHWRPDNHRIWKHVHÀXFWXDWLQJ ¿JXUHV")RUWKHODWHVL[WHHQWKFHQWXU\ERWK/LHQ%LFK/XXDQG/DXUD+XQW<XQJEOXW FUHGLWDWOHDVWLQSDUWDFRPELQDWLRQRIEDFNPLJUDWLRQDQGDJRYHUQPHQWSROLF\RI

30

Luu, Immigrants, pp. 17–18, 97. Pettegree, Foreign Protestant Communities, p. 11. 32 Ibid., p. 16. 33 Ibid., p. 17. 34 Yungblut, Strangers, pp. 21–3; Luu, Immigrants, p. 96. Yungblut suggests that the vast increase and subsequent drop between 1567 and 1571 can be accounted for by a combination of a genuine rise in immigration, followed by both return migration and ³DFDUHIXOO\FRQVLGHUHGSROLF\>RQWKHSDUWRIFHQWUDOJRYHUQPHQW@RIGLVSHUVLQJVXEVWDQWLDO numbers of aliens to other locations, the said policy periodically lowering the strangers’ numbers in London.” She also points to the high death rate, suggesting that at least some immigrants replaced others who had died, “a trend which cannot be seen in the survey totals”; see Yungblut, Strangers, S+RZHYHUHYHQZLWKWKHVHVXJJHVWLRQVWDNHQLQWR DFFRXQWWKH¿JXUHRIVHHPVLQH[SOLFDEO\KLJK 35 Luu, Immigrants, p. 98–9; Scouloudi, Returns, p. 100. 36 Ibid. 31

Setting the Stage: Finding a Place in Early Modern London

27

dispersing new arrivals to areas beyond the metropolis.37 However, it is not clear that such factors can explain the radical drop indicated by the 1635 Returns. There are, in fact, particular reasons to doubt the early Stuart numbers. Scouloudi notes that “the information afforded by this Return is so spasmodic its absolute validity is questionable.”38 Although the area covered by the count corresponded with that for the Return of 1593, the quality of the data drops off the further one moves from the City, becoming “much less full when the periphery of the metropolis is reached.”39 The numbers for Westminster and the relevant areas of Surrey and Middlesex are, she suggests, “very uneven.”40 Calculating the percentage of London’s total population comprised by aliens LVH[WUHPHO\GLI¿FXOWJLYHQERWKWKHSUREOHPDWLFQDWXUHRIWKH5HWXUQVDQGWKH disputed size and extent of the metropolis. Pettegree’s assertion that the community of strangers at the time of Henry VIII’s death constituted “between 5 and 8 per cent of the city’s total population” rests on a civic number of “between seventy and QLQHW\WKRXVDQG´ZLWKWKHORZHU¿JXUHH[FOXGLQJWKHPHWURSROLV¶VVXEXUEV,IZH use Finlay and Shearer’s larger count (120,000 for 1550), numbers that include both DUHDVRXWVLGHWKH&LW\¶VIRUPDOMXULVGLFWLRQDQGWKHFLW\¶V³ÀRDWLQJSRSXODWLRQ´WKH percentages are lower. Conversely, if Vanessa Harding’s downward revision for mid-century is correct (no more than 75,000 for intramural parishes and those in the extramural liberties, Middlesex and Surrey) then 8 percent would be roughly correct for much of the metropolitan area, not just the City. Lien Luu provides one estimate for 1553 that places the metropolis’s stranger population at 10,000 and the percentage at 12.5. Factoring in strangers not counted by the Returns, she leaves this absolute number static for 1571 and 1593. With the growth in the size RIWKHFLW\WKLVOHDGVWRDOLHQSHUFHQWDJHVRIWHQDQG¿YHUHVSHFWLYHO\41 And Finlay, using numbers for the total metropolitan population that include distant parishes WRJHWKHU ZLWK 6FRXORXGL¶V ¿JXUHV IRU WKH DOLHQ SRSXODWLRQ SDLQWV D SLFWXUH RI D general drop in the proportion of aliens over time: 4.7 percent in 1567, 4.9 in 1571, 5.3 in 1573, 3.6 in 1593 and 1 percent in 1635.42 Although the disparity between /XX¶VPRUHUHFHQWFDOFXODWLRQVDQGWKRVHRI)LQOD\LVSDUWLFXODUO\VWULNLQJERWK seem to indicate a direction of general decline. Yet as we will see, the community of strangers continued to concern many early modern Londoners. 37

Luu, Immigrants, pp. 97–98; Yungblut, Strangers, p. 21. Scouloudi, Returns, p. 100. 39 Ibid., pp. 98, 100. 40 Ibid., p. 100. 41 Pettegree, Foreign Protestant Communities, pp. 17, 16 n. 22. The low end of Pettegree’s statistics for the City’s population come from Finlay, Population and Metropolis, S  ZKLFK JLYHV WKH  ¿JXUH RI  +RZHYHU )LQOD\ DQG 6KHDUHU WDNLQJ LQWR account the suburbs beyond the bars and transient residents, give a number of 120,000 for 1550; see Finlay and Shearer, “Population Growth,” pp. 48–9; Harding, “The Population of London, 1550–1700,” p. 112, table 1; Luu, Immigrants, p. 92, table 4.1. 42 Finlay, Population and Metropolis, p. 68. 38

Diversity and Difference in Early Modern London

28

Numbers, reliable or otherwise, are much harder to come by for the latter part of the seventeenth century, when there are no sources equivalent to the Returns.43 However, there does seem to have been a massive increase in French Huguenot immigration after 1650, and in particular following the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes in 1685. Eight to ten thousand Huguenots probably arrived in England between 1650 and 1680, and as many as 40,000–50,000 after 1680, though many of those were simply passing through the metropolis to points further west (whether Somerset or the Americas).44 Robin Gwynn suggests that French exiles constituted as much as 5 percent of London’s population by 1700.45 The Restoration was also characterized by the arrival of new groups. The English government formally readmitted Jews in 1656, although, as we will see, crypto-Jews were present in the realm before this date. Jewish numbers would remain comparatively small, as low as 500 in the 1680s and probably still less than 1,000 by the mid-1690s. Dutch immigration seems to have dropped off after 1650, despite calls by the Crown for settlement from the Netherlands in the 1670s. By the end of the century the metropolis boasted three German churches, the largest of which had 200–300 members.46 ,Q  *UHHN LPPLJUDQWV HVWDEOLVKHG D VPDOO FRQJUHJDWLRQ WKH LQVWLWXWLRQDOHPERGLPHQWRIDVPDOOEXWVWHDG\WULFNOHRIUHIXJHHVIURPFRQÀLFWLQ areas lying “between the Ottoman Empire’s dependencies and those lands allied with Christian Europe.”47 In short, after decades of decline, the second half of the FHQWXU\VDZERWKDODUJHLQFUHDVHLQ)UHQFKLPPLJUDWLRQDQGDGLYHUVL¿FDWLRQLQ the ethnic composition of London’s other immigrant groups. For French and Dutch Protestants, war and religious persecution on the Continent provided the most frequently-articulated reasons for immigrating to 43

As Robin Gwynn notes, historians are left with two options, either to use “records NHSWE\WKH>VWUDQJHUV¶@FRQJUHJDWLRQVWKHPVHOYHV´RUWR³UHO\RQFRQWHPSRUDU\VWDWHPHQWV as to numbers. The latter may be misinformed, or deliberately maximized or minimized to support a particular case, while the former may be defective”; Robin Gwynn, “The Number of Huguenot Immigrants in England in the Late Seventeenth Century,” Journal of Historical Geography, 9/4 (1983): 386. 44 Statt, Foreigners and Englishmen, pp. 28–9. Statt’s numbers come from R.D. Gwynn, “The Arrival of Huguenot Refugees in England, 1680–1705,” Proceedings of the Hueguenot Society of London, 21 (1965–70): 366–73; R.D. Gwynn, “The Distribution of Huguenot Refugees in England,” Proceedings of the Hueguenot Society of London, 21 (1965–70): 404–36; R.D. Gwynn, “The Distribution of Huguenot Refugees in England, II: London and Its Environs,” Proceedings of the Hueguenot Society of London, 22 (1970–76): 509–68. For a late Victorian treatment, see Cunningham, Alien Immigrants, p. 230. See also Gwynn, “Number of Huguenot Immigrants,” and for a synthesis of his articles, ch. 2 of Gwynn, Huguenot Heritage. 45 Gwynn, “Number of Huguenot Immigrants,” p. 393. For a study of attitudes towards Huguenots in the 1680s, see Hintermaier, “The First Modern Refugees?” 46 Statt, Foreigners and Englishmen, pp. 29–30. For the Crown’s call for Dutch immigration, see TNA, Privy Council Registers (hereafter PC) 2/63, p. 259. 47 Statt, Foreigners and Englishmen, p. 30; Schen, “Constructing the Poor,” p. 453.

Setting the Stage: Finding a Place in Early Modern London

29

London. Hans Pemable was not alone in listing religion along with other reasons for moving to the metropolis.48&RQIHVVLRQDOVWULIHRQWKH&RQWLQHQWKDGDVLJQL¿FDQW effect on immigration to London, causing people to settle in the metropolis for ERWK WKH VDNH RI WKHLU FRQVFLHQFH DQG EHFDXVH RI WKH HFRQRPLF LQVWDELOLW\ WKDW resulted from religious warfare. Events in Continental Europe closely affected the numbers of aliens arriving in London, as well as those who chose to return to their FRXQWULHVRIRULJLQ$V$QGUHZ3HWWHJUHHQRWHVWKH)UHQFKFRPPXQLW\ÀXFWXDWHG along with the chances of peace in Europe. Many religious refugees returned to France at the time of the Colloquy of Poissy in 1561 and again following the 3DFL¿FDWLRQRI$PERLVH%ORRGVKHGLQLQFUHDVHGLPPLJUDWLRQIURP)UDQFH ZKLOHSHDFHLQOHGWRPRUHEDFNPLJUDWLRQ+RZHYHU³ZLWKWKHPDVVDFUHRI St Bartholomew’s Day in 1572 the successive waves of refugees became a torrent” (as they would a century later, following the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes).49 The same was true of the Dutch community, with a rise in the numbers of refugees following hostilities with Spain in 1558, and large-scale return in 1566 with the granting of limited religious toleration. Alva’s campaign of repression in the late 1560s, however, caused a new tide of immigrants, while the 1585 fall of Antwerp had less of an effect on settlement in London.50 By the end of the century there are signs that moves towards peace had encouraged some strangers to once again return to the Continent.51 Although immigration continued through subsequent decades, there was an absence of further large-scale waves of refugees until the renewed persecution of the Huguenots in the latter half of the seventeenth century. Dutch immigration had tailed off after the 1590s, although a small number of French refugees settled in 48

His examination as part of an inquiry into the legitimacy of those immigrants who “pretend to be here for their conscience” reveals the doubt cast upon the religious motives of some strangers. See TNA, SP 12/85, no. 50, fol. 118r. 49 Pettegree, Foreign Protestant Communities, pp. 216–17. 50 Ibid., p. 217; Luu, Immigrants, p. 107; Grell, Calvinist Exiles, p. 4. Pettegree also points out that a sharp distinction between events in France and the Netherlands can not always be maintained (nor, indeed, can a similar distinction between French and Dutch): ³>(@YHQWVLQWKH1HWKHUODQGVKDGDOPRVWDVJUHDWDQLPSDFWRQWKH)UHQFKDVRQWKH'XWFK FKXUFK LQ /RQGRQ$ ÀXFWXDWLQJ EXW DOZD\V FRQVLGHUDEOH SURSRUWLRQ RI WKH PHPEHUV RI the French church were from the Netherlands rather than metropolitan France, and in consequence the numerical impact of French events on the size of the London French FRPPXQLW\ ZDV QRW DOZD\V DV PDUNHG DV RQH PLJKW H[SHFW´ VHH 3HWWHJUHH Foreign Protestant Communities, p. 217. 51 In particular, the reign of Henry IV and a subsequent concentration on the part of the governor of the Spanish Netherlands with France rather than the Dutch; see Scouloudi, Returns, p. 76. For an overview of sixteenth-century Continental warfare and its effect on immigration to London, see Luu, Immigrants, pp. 104–9. For detailed histories of the events WKHPVHOYHVVHH0DFN3+ROWThe French Wars of Religion, 1562–1629, New Approaches WR (XURSHDQ +LVWRU\  &DPEULGJH DQG 1HZ
Diversity and Difference in Early Modern London

30

the London after renewed confessional strife in the 1620s.52 There are no signs that WKH7KLUW\
Grell, Calvinist Exiles, p. 5. Scouloudi, Returns, p. 107. 54 Henry E. Huntington Library, Ellesmere (hereafter Huntington, EL) MS 2446, fol. 5r. 55 Pettegree, Foreign Protestant Communities, p. 35. The charter stated that the new churches were to provide “an uncorrupt interpretation of the most Holy Gospel and administration of the sacraments according to the word of God and apostolic observance”; cited in Pettegree, Foreign Protestant Communities, p. 35. See ibid., ch. 2, for more on the circumstances of the formation of the alien congregations. 56 Ibid., pp. 138–9. For ties between the stranger churches and the Continent see Charles Littleton, “The Strangers, their Churches and the Continent: Continuing and Changing Connexions,” in Goose and Luu (eds.), Immigrants in Tudor and Early Stuart England, pp. 177–91. 57 Luu, Immigrants, p. 98. 53

Setting the Stage: Finding a Place in Early Modern London

31

just as Huguenot immigration began to outpace that from the Low Countries. Swamped by new arrivals, the French congregation in Threadneedle Street made occasional use of the Dutch Church in Austin Friars.58 Throughout the seventeenth century the strangers’ churches found themselves buffeted by the surrounding religious and political climate. Prominent members of the Dutch congregation faced accusations that they were illegally exporting bullion in 1619. The church also became the target of the Laudian push for religious XQLIRUPLW\LQWKHVDQGUHVSRQGHGE\DFWLYHO\VHHNLQJWRDVVHUWLWVRZQXQLTXH religious identity.59 The 1640s offered a different challenge, with emerging English Independent congregations threatening to attract members away from immigrant churches, many of whose congregants were, in any case, born within the realm. During the same period, the original French Church saw both internal disputes and the formation of a rival congregation.60 By the end of the seventeenth century the challenge to the Dutch Church posed by assimilation is underscored by the fact that few of William of Orange’s newly arrived Dutch entourage seem to have FRQVLGHUHGWKHFRQJUHJDWLRQDVWKHLURZQ%\WKHFKXUFKKDGWR¿JKWWRUHWDLQ LWVVSHFLDOUHOLJLRXVSULYLOHJHVLQWKHIDFHRIDFUDFNGRZQRQGLVVHQWHUV61 7KH )UHQFK DQG 'XWFK FKXUFKHV IXQFWLRQHG DV WKH RI¿FLDO IDFH RI WKH DOLHQ community, disciplining their own members, maintaining order, acting in liaison ZLWK&URZQDQG&LW\RI¿FLDOVDQGQRWOHDVWSURYLGLQJDQHWZRUNRIVXSSRUWIRUQHZ immigrants.62 Because of this role as formal representatives of London’s aliens, the congregations found themselves on the receiving end of many complaints by the English. In June 1595 members of the Weavers’ Company presented a long list of grievances to the ministers and elders of the French Church, detailing the “griefs and the injuries which daily we endure at the hands of many of your nation DQGFRXQWU\«FRPLQJKLWKHUDVWKH\VD\ IRUWKHJRVSHO¶VVDNH´63 The weavers stated their hope that the elders might use “persuasions of love and agreement” in order to discipline those “obstinate and perverse” strangers who “care not how WKH\RIIHQGWKHODZVRLWPD\EULQJWKHPSUR¿W´64 Whether or not the elders of WKHFKXUFKWRRNDFWLRQLVXQFOHDUWKRXJKWKHFRPSODLQWVRIWKHZHDYHUVFRQWLQXHG RYHUWKHFRXUVHRIWKHQH[WVHYHUDOGHFDGHV7KHUROHRIWKHFKXUFKHVDVRI¿FLDO 58 Andrew Spicer, “‘A Place of Refuge and Sanctuary of a Holy Temple’: Exile Communities and the Stranger Churches,” in Goose and Luu (eds.), Immigrants in Tudor and Early Stuart England, p. 99. 59 Grell, Calvinist Exiles, pp. 42–8. 60 Ibid., p. 92; Spicer, “A Place of Refuge,” p. 105. According to Grell, by 1600 approximately 40 percent of the strangers’ congregations were English-born; see Grell, Calvinist Exiles, p. 35. See Chapter 3 below for an extended discussion of the position of the children and grandchildren of aliens. 61 Grell, Calvinist Exiles, pp. 120–22, 141. 62 Pettegree, Foreign Protestant Communities, pp. 299–300, 305. 63 Guildhall Library (hereafter GL), MS 4647, fol. 65r. 64 Ibid., fols. 69v, 65v.

32

Diversity and Difference in Early Modern London

representatives of London’s aliens, and as a focus of opprobrium, would also continue throughout the seventeenth century.65 It would be wrong to conclude that the French and Dutch churches represented all Continental immigrants. Some new arrivals preferred to attend the English churches or, in many cases, no church at all. The Returns of 1568 counted 1,910 strangers attending the Dutch church and 1,810 members of the French congregation. However, a further 1,815 attended English churches, with 1,008 naming no church whatsoever.66 Five years later, the Privy Council found that 37 SHUFHQWRIVWUDQJHUVODFNHGPHPEHUVKLSLQDQ\FKXUFK'XULQJWKHVDPH\HDUWKH\ ordered those aliens of no church, or those refusing to attend services, to leave London.67 Although the French and Dutch congregations positioned themselves as WKHRI¿FLDOYRLFHVRIWKHDOLHQFRPPXQLW\LQ/RQGRQFOHDUO\PDQ\VWUDQJHUVJDYH them a wide berth. Residence Patterns While the English authorities did not force aliens to live in ghettoes, Continental immigrants tended to cluster in some wards and avoid others.68 In general, the concentration of strangers was higher outside of the center of the City, with the greatest density immediately adjacent to the walls. According to one 1593 FRXQWWKH¿YHZDUGVZLWKWKHODUJHVWDOLHQSRSXODWLRQZHUH%LVKRSVJDWHWRWKH north-east, straddling the walls), Farringdon Within (491, in the far west), Aldgate (394, in the east, immediately within the walls), Langeborne (332, an exception as LWIHOOZHOOZLWKLQWKHZDOOV DQG%ULGJH:LWKRXWRQWKHVRXWKEDQN $OOZHUH generally poor areas, except for the anomalous Langborne, a center for goldsmiths (and thus, perhaps, Hans Pemable’s ultimate destination). These statistics do not include areas beyond the “bars” of the City, where large numbers of aliens also UHVLGHGSDUWLFXODUO\LQHDVWHUQVXEXUEVVXFKDV6W.DWKHULQH¶V697KH¿YHZDUGV with the lowest population of strangers all fell far from the walls, in the center of 65 For more on this complaint, see Chapter 2 below, pp. 64–6; Goose, “Xenophobia,” p. 124; Luu, ImmigrantsSS±:DUG³)LFWLWLRXV6KRHPDNHUV´SS±:DUGGLVFXVVHV the tension between the Weavers and aliens at length in Metropolitan Communities, ch. 6. 66 Scouloudi, Returns, p. 75. 67 Luu, Immigrants, p. 110; Spicer, “A Place of Refuge,” p. 92. 68 $V<XQJEOXWQRWHVLQVRPHFDVHVORFDORI¿FLDOVGLG¿QGKRXVHVIRUQHZVHWWOHUV see Yungblut, StrangersS$¿IWHHQWKFHQWXU\VWDWXWH+HQU\,9F DOVRVWLSXODWHG that merchant strangers were to reside with English hosts for the duration of their time in the realm, although the authorities seem to have enforced this only sporadically; see Yungblut, Strangers, pp. 67, 148 n. 28. See Huntington, EL 2517 for an early Stuart petition complaining of alien evasion of this residence requirement (discussed in Chapter 2 below). 69 Yungblut, Strangers, p. 27, table 3; Pettegree, Foreign Protestant Communities, p. 18. See also Luu, Immigrants, p. 122, table 4.8, for further statistics regarding the

Setting the Stage: Finding a Place in Early Modern London

33

the City, with one exception: Cordwainer Street boasted 11 aliens, Bassishaw 19 (the anomaly, in the far north of the City immediately within the walls), Cheap 27, Breadstreet 30 and Queenhithe 38.70 The distribution of strangers throughout the city had changed over time, LQÀXHQFHGE\WKHFLW\¶VRZQVKLIWLQJSDWWHUQVRISRSXODWLRQDQGRFFXSDWLRQ2YHU the course of the sixteenth century, aliens had tended to move away from wards close to the river, due both to overcrowding and efforts by the City to disperse WKHPPRUHZLGHO\7KHQXPEHURIVWUDQJHUVH[SDQGHGPRVWPDUNHGO\LQHDVWHUQ wards, with the greatest population in Bishopsgate, which lay mostly beyond the walls. And, in general, distribution trends echoed the directional growth of /RQGRQLWVHOI$OLHQVOLNH(QJOLVKPLJUDQWVZKRODFNHGWKHIUHHGRPRIWKH&LW\ sought to evade guild restriction by settling in areas beyond the City’s control, whether extramural suburbs or intramural liberties. However, as Lien Luu notes, one factor was unique to strangers: the desire to settle with one’s own linguistic community also shaped population movements, contributing to concentrations of 'XWFKVSHDNHUV LQ 6W 2ODYH SDULVK DQG RI )UHQFKVSHDNHUV LQ 6W 7KRPDV DQG St. George. As immigration from the Netherlands began to decline at the end of the sixteenth century, so too did the alien population south of the river.71 The absolute number of aliens in a given area was, not surprisingly, also tied to the size of a ward. Those with the highest numbers may have been so simply because of their larger general population, while small, central, prosperous wards contained the fewest strangers. Yet because some wards were characteristically home to aliens while others were not, some areas gave an appearance that the overall number of strangers in the City was higher and more concentrated than it actually was.72 In 1550, the eastern wards of Aldgate, the Tower, Langborne and Billingsgate (all within the walls) boasted stranger communities that comprised more than 10 percent of the adult male population, as did the central ward of 'RZJDWH,Q(DVW6PLWK¿HOGQRUWKRIWKHZDOOVWKHQXPEHUZDVSHUFHQW73 In the small northern intramural liberty of St. Martin-le-Grande, according to Pettegree, “strangers made up half the population.”74 For those residing in these areas, ZKHWKHU(QJOLVKRUDOLHQ/RQGRQSUREDEO\VHHPHGOLNHDFLW\RILPPLJUDQWV

distribution of London’s alien population. For 1593, Luu and Yungblut provide slightly different numbers, although they cite the same source (BL Lansdowne 74/31). 70 Yungblut, Strangers S  WDEOH  'HVSLWH WKH VXI¿[ RI ³VWUHHW´ WKHVH DUH WKH names of wards. 71 Luu, Immigrants, pp. 121–6. Yungblut also notes that settlement tended to follow existing geographical patterns; see Yungblut, Strangers, p. 29. See also Pettegree, “Thirty Years On,” p. 298. 72 Yungblut, Strangers, pp. 27–9. 73 Pettegree, Foreign Protestant Communities, p. 21. 74 Ibid., p. 18.

Diversity and Difference in Early Modern London

34

Strangers and Working Life ([DPLQHGWKUHHZHHNVDIWHUKLVDUULYDOLQ+DQV3HPDEOHVWDWHGWKDWKHFRXOG QRW³WHOOFHUWDLQO\ZKHUHWRKDYHZRUN´75 He would have needed the permission of the Company of Goldsmiths in order to legally follow his chosen vocation within the City. Other professions regulated by London’s livery companies included HYHU\WKLQJ IURP EDNLQJ DQG G\LQJ WR VNLQQLQJ DQG ZHDYLQJ76 Migrants to the PHWURSROLVFRXOGDOVR¿QGZRUNRXWVLGHRIWKHFRPSDQ\V\VWHPHLWKHUE\LOOLFLWO\ SUDFWLFLQJWUDGHVRI¿FLDOO\FRQWUROOHGE\WKHJXLOGVRUE\ZRUNLQJDWHYHU\WKLQJ from ditch-digging and brewing to scrivening and prostitution. The city was, if anything, characterized as much by its variety of occupations as by any one LQGXVWU\DQGZDVSUREDEO\WKHPRVWGLYHUVL¿HGFHQWHULQ(XURSHE\7KDW VDLGFHUWDLQNLQGVRIZRUNUHPDLQHGGRPLQDQW&ORWKLQJZDVWKHSULPHLQGXVWU\ GXULQJWKHHDUO\PRGHUQSHULRGFRPSULVLQJEHWZHHQD¿IWKDQGDTXDUWHURIWKH civic economy. Victualing, distribution, transportation and a range of merchant WUDGHVDOVRSURYLGHGYLWDOHPSOR\PHQW$TXDUWHURIWKHFLW\¶VZRUNHUVWRRNSDUW LQWKHLQGXVWULHVRIEXLOGLQJOHDWKHUSURGXFWLRQDQGPHWDOZRUNLQJ/RQGRQZDV then, a major industrial center, as well as a nexus of trade and distribution.77 Although strangers were active in a broad range of occupations, they SUHGRPLQDWHGLQWKUHHVHFWRUVWKHFORWKLQJLQGXVWU\PHWDOZRUNDQGWUDGH%\WKH ¿QDO GHFDGH RI WKH VL[WHHQWK FHQWXU\ DURXQG  SHUFHQW RI DOLHQV LQ WKH &LW\¶V ZDUGV ZRUNHG LQ FORWK SURGXFWLRQ RYHU WZLFH WKH SURSRUWLRQ RI QDWLYH (QJOLVK Alien merchants mirrored their English-born colleagues at around 13 percent, ZLWKSHUFHQWRIVWUDQJHUVHQJDJHGLQPHWDOZRUNLQJFRPSDUHGWRSHUFHQWRI the English).78 Immigrants tended to be disproportionately active in the luxury HQGV RI WKHVH LQGXVWULHV IURP VLON ZHDYLQJ WR ZRUN DV JROG DQG VLOYHUVPLWKV Such patterns followed a discernible shift towards specialization from the second KDOI RI WKH VL[WHHQWK FHQWXU\ LQ HDUOLHU GHFDGHV VWUDQJHUV KDG WHQGHG WR UHÀHFW WKHLULQGLJHQRXVFRKRUWVLQWKHLUUDQJHRIZRUN7KHUHDVRQVIRUWKLVFKDQJHDUH varied, from deliberate efforts by the government to foster new forms of cloth manufacturing by encouraging immigration (the so-called “New Draperies,” discussed below) to the geographical and socio-economic origin of those refugees, 75

TNA, SP 12/85, no. 50, fol. 120v. $  OLVW RI FRPSDQLHV FRQWULEXWLQJ PHQ WR NHHS ZDWFK LQ WKH &LW\ QDPHV  guilds; see George Unwin, The Gilds and Companies of London (London, 1908), p. 371. For alien involvement in the Goldsmiths’ Company, see Luu, Immigrants, ch. 7. 77 A.L. Beier, “Engine of Manufacture: The Trades of London,” in Beier and Finlay (eds.), London 1500–1700, pp. 147–9; for exact numbers, see the table in ibid., p. 148. Manufacturing was increasingly concentrated in the extramural suburbs towards the north, east and south. Within the City’s walls, trade eclipsed production. Parishes in the East End were centers for shipping and shipbuilding, while the West End, though a center for the SURIHVVLRQVZDVDOVRWKHIRFXVRIVNLOOHGPHWDOZRUNLQJVHHLELGSS± 78 Luu, Immigrants, p. 120, table 4.7. 76

Setting the Stage: Finding a Place in Early Modern London

35

SDUWLFXODUO\ +XJXHQRWV ZKR ÀHG WR (QJODQG LQYROXQWDULO\ $QG DV /LHQ /XX QRWHVVNLOOHGVWUDQJHUVPRYLQJWR/RQGRQWHQGHGWRFDWHUWRWKHFLW\¶VFRQVLGHUDEOH GHPDQGIRUOX[XU\JRRGVVLONZDVPRUHLPSRUWDQWLQ/RQGRQ¶VFORWKLQGXVWU\WKDQ HOVHZKHUHZKLOHZRUNHUVLQSUHFLRXVPHWDOVIRXQGDUHDG\PDUNHW79 The disproportionate involvement of aliens in the textile business ensured that the manufacturing of cloth would become a central arena for the creation RI GLIIHUHQFH $V QHZ PHWKRGV WRRN URRW LPPLJUDQWV DQG WKHLU (QJOLVKERUQ RIIVSULQJLQFUHDVLQJO\UHFHLYHGEODPHIRUWKHZRHVRI(QJOLVKFORWKZRUNHUVDQG the problems of the English clothing trade, a fact that shaped the creation of antistranger stereotypes. For many Londoners, the involvement of immigrants in the WH[WLOHEXVLQHVVHQWDLOHGDFFXVDWLRQVQRWMXVWRIDOLHQGRPLQDWLRQRIWKHZRUNIRUFH but of deliberate duplicity. As one petition by English weavers complained in DOLHQV³XVHPXFKGHFHLWLQWKHPDNLQJRIVLONV«PL[LQJWKUHDGRIWKUHH VKLOOLQJVSHUSRXQGZLWKVLONVRIIRUW\VKLOOLQJV¿IW\VKLOOLQJVDQGIRXUSRXQGVSHU pound” and combining “woolen with camel’s hair.” Such deception could have scandalous consequences: “thread in lace hath been so cunningly covered with VLONWKDWRXUUR\DO3ULQFH&KDUOHVWKDWQRZLVKDWKZRUQRIWKHVDPH´80 And, as we will see, for many petitioners the problem went beyond the planned production of shoddy goods. Wider changes in the cloth business, whether new forms of cloth or new looms and engines brought from the Continent, indicated malevolence, signs that aliens deliberately intended to undermine the integrity of the trade and the OLYHOLKRRGVRI(QJOLVKZRUNHUV The most important change in the early modern textile industry was the development of the so-called “New Draperies.” Prior to the mid-sixteenth century, English cloth production had largely centered on woolens and worsteds, both of which were relatively heavy and coarse. Woolens used shorter wool which, after carding, spinning and weaving, was made hardier by fulling (a process that involved WKHVRDNLQJRIWKHPDWHULDOWRPDNHLWPRUHVWXUG\ :RUVWHGVXVHGORQJHUZRRO ZKLFK ZRUNHUV WKHQFRPEHGLQVWHDGRI FDUGHG%\ (OL]DEHWK¶V UHLJQWKH&URZQ began to encourage the introduction of the more sophisticated manufacturing PHWKRGV FRPPRQ RQ WKH &RQWLQHQW DORQJ ZLWK WKH LPPLJUDQW FORWKZRUNHUV QHHGHGWRHQVXUHWKDWVXFKVNLOOVWRRNKROG7KH1HZ'UDSHULHVUHOLHGLQSDUWRQ wool that combined both fulling and carding, producing cloth that was lighter, less expensive and more versatile than that made using more traditional methods. New PHWKRGVDQGLPPLJUDQWZRUNHUVIURPWKH&RQWLQHQWDOVRUHYROXWLRQL]HG/RQGRQ¶V VPDOOVLONLQGXVWU\OHDGLQJWRDGUDPDWLFLQFUHDVHLQSURGXFWLRQ81(QJOLVKZRUNHUV 79

Ibid., pp. 114–21. For an overview of the role of aliens in the Elizabethan economy, and of the government’s economic policy as it pertained to immigration, see also Yungblut, Strangers, ch. 4. 80 GL, MS 4647, fol. 156r. 81 D.M. Palliser, The Age of Elizabeth: England under the Later Tudors, 1547–1603, QGHGQ6RFLDODQG(FRQRPLF+LVWRU\RI(QJODQG/RQGRQDQG1HZ
36

Diversity and Difference in Early Modern London

engaged in more traditional, less lucrative forms of cloth manufacturing frequently singled out strangers as the cause of their woes, identifying the New Draperies ZLWKDOLHQLQÀXHQFH82 Some English weavers also blamed strangers for the introduction of new looms WKDW WKH\ DOOHJHG OHG WR WKH GLVSODFHPHQW RI ZRUNHUV DQG DOLHQ GRPLQDWLRQ RI the cloth trade. According to one early Stuart petition to the Crown recorded by the :HDYHUV¶&RPSDQ\DOLHQVKDG³VHWXSKHUHPDQ\HQJLQHVZKLFKGRPDNHGHFHLWIXO ZRUNDQGE\HYLOFRQVHTXHQFHGRWDNHWKHOLYHOLKRRGRIPDQ\WKRXVDQGIDPLOLHVRI his Majesty’s subjects,” devices invented in the Netherlands but since prohibited there due to their harmful effect.83 Indeed, a new form of loom does seem to have made its way to London from the Continent in previous decades (though it was probably invented in Danzig in the 1570s, where authorities subsequently prohibited its use). One English petition of 1628 complained that such engine ORRPVFRXOGGLVSODFHDGR]HQZHDYHUVDOORZLQJDVLQJOHZRUNHUWRZRUNDVPDQ\ as 20 shuttles.84 Other complaints suggested that the Continental technology had displaced almost 500 English weavers. Such engines became the target of rioting in London in 1675.85 $OLHQFORWKZRUNHUVLQLWLDOO\VHWWOHGLQWKHWRZQVDQGYLOODJHVRIWKHVRXWKHDVW SDUWLFXODUO\LQ1RUZLFKDVZHOODVHOVHZKHUHLQ1RUIRON6XIIRONDQG(VVH[ RIWHQ with the encouragement not just of the Crown but also of local residents eager to expand cloth production. From this base, new methods spread to other clothing LQYROYHPHQWLQWKHVLONLQGXVWU\FKRIWKHVDPHERRNH[DPLQHVJRYHUQPHQWHIIRUWVWR foster Continental methods of cloth manufacturing. For the spread of the New Draperies, see Nigel Goose, “Immigrants and English Economic Development in the Sixteenth and Early Seventeenth Centuries,” in Goose and Luu (eds.), Immigrants in Tudor and Early Stuart England, pp. 139–42. 82 $V-RDQ7KLUVNKDVQRWHGWKHVWRU\RIWKHGHYHORSPHQWRIWKH1HZ'UDSHULHVKDV RIWHQEHHQRYHUVLPSOL¿HGZLWKWKHFRPSOH[LW\RIERWKWKHVKLIWLQFORWKSURGXFWLRQDQG its impact obscured by a simple narrative. The term itself rightly refers to “innumerable GLIIHUHQW NLQGV RI FORWKV ZKRVH QXPEHU ZDV FRQVWDQWO\ HQODUJHG´ 0RUHRYHU ZKLOH WKH W\SHVRIWH[WLOHVGLYHUVL¿HGVRWKHSUHVHQFHRIQHZPDWHULDOVOHGWRWKHH[SDQVLRQRIDKRVW RIKDQGLFUDIWVIURPWKHNQLWWLQJRIVWRFNLQJVWRWKHPDNLQJRIODFHDQGULEERQVDOORIZKLFK LQWXUQIXUWKHUVWLPXODWHGWKH(QJOLVKHFRQRP\6WRFNLQJNQLWWLQJFRQVXPHGDWKLUGRIWKH ORQJHUZRROGHVWLQHGIRUWKHQHZGUDSHULHVDQGOHGWRVXEVWDQWLDOH[SRUWVVHH-RDQ7KLUVN Economic Policy and Projects: The Development of a Consumer Society in Early Modern England (Oxford, 1978), pp. 44, 44–6. 83 GL, MS 4647, fol. 338r (c. 1630s). See Ward, Metropolitan Communities, p. 128, and Chapter 2 below for more on these accusations. 84 Richard M. Dunn, “The London Weavers’ Riot of 1675,” Guildhall Studies in London History, 1/1 (1973): 14. The new loom was imported from Danzig to the Netherlands, where its use, although allowed, was heavily curtailed (ibid., p. 14). 85 Luu, ImmigrantsS6HHDOVR:DUG³µ>,@PSOR\PHQWIRUDOOKDQGHVWKDWZLOO ZRUNH¶,PPLJUDQWV*XLOGVDQGWKH/DERXU0DUNHWLQ(DUO\6HYHQWHHQWKFHQWXU\/RQGRQ´ in Goose and Luu (eds.), Immigrants in Tudor and Early Stuart England, p. 82.

Setting the Stage: Finding a Place in Early Modern London

37

centers throughout England.86 $OWKRXJK ZRUNHUV LQ WKHVH DUHDV PDQXIDFWXUHG much of England’s cloth, London was itself a center of production. A.L. Beier’s ¿JXUHRI±SHUFHQWIRUFORWKLQJ¶VVKDUHRIWKHFLW\¶VWUDGHVUHIHUVVSHFL¿FDOO\ to production, not distribution.87 The importance and power of guilds such as the &RPSDQ\RI:HDYHUVDOVRDWWHVWVWRWKHVLJQL¿FDQFHRIWH[WLOHSURGXFWLRQLQWKH PHWURSROLV$QG/RQGRQZDVDOVRWKHPDUNHWFHQWHUIRUPRVWRIWKHQDWLRQ¶VFORWK exports. Textiles were the most important product shipped overseas, and by the VL[WHHQWKFHQWXU\WKHEXONRIWKHVHZHQWWR$QWZHUSQRZ(XURSH¶VWUDGLQJQH[XV88 Along with the introduction of new manufacturing methods from the Continent, a shift from grain to sheep farming in England and growing demand for cloth abroad ensured the importance of the export trade in the second half of the sixteenth century.89 The role of alien merchants in exporting English cloth made them a target for complaint, entangling them in the larger politics of the Continental cloth trade. By the late sixteenth century the Company of Eastland Merchants was beginning to object both to the Company of Merchant Adventurers’ monopoly on the exporting of undressed cloth and to the role that strangers played in so crucial a trade.90 The Merchant Adventurers, meanwhile, strenuously asserted their right to export undressed cloth to the Continent in alliance with strangers, who were also permitted to carry English cloth as long as they “pay double custom” and “ship the same in English ships.”91 The issue of cloth export came to a head in 7KH&URZQLQDOOLDQFHZLWKDJURXSRI&LW\PHUFKDQWV¿QDOO\DWWHPSWHGWR wrestle control from the Merchant Adventurers. However, rather than following the Eastland Merchants’ suggestion of ending the monopoly, the group proposed D QHZ HQWHUSULVH ZLWK LWV RZQ PRQRSRO\ WKLV WLPH VHOOLQJ ¿QLVKHG PDWHULDO WR WKH RYHUVHDV PDUNHW 7KH &RFND\QH 3URMHFW DV WKLV EHFDPH NQRZQ XOWLPDWHO\ FROODSVHGQRWOHDVWEHFDXVHRID'XWFKUHOXFWDQFHWRLPSRUW¿QLVKHGFORWK7KLV 86

7KLUVNEconomic Policy, p. 44. For more on the cloth industry throughout England as a whole, see Peter J. Bowden, The Wool Trade in Tudor and Stuart England (London and 1HZ
Diversity and Difference in Early Modern London

38

failure, at a time when cloth constituted 80 percent of English exports, served RQFHPRUHWRKLJKOLJKW(QJODQG¶VUHOLDQFHRQIRUHLJQFORWK¿QLVKLQJDVZHOODVWKH ongoing involvement of alien merchants.92 The importance of the cloth trade for the economy of England as a whole, and for London in particular, when combined with the real and perceived involvement RIDOLHQZRUNHUVDQGWHFKQRORJ\HQVXUHGWKDWWH[WLOHSURGXFWLRQZDVDORFXVRI DQWLVWUDQJHUVHQWLPHQW$QGDOWKRXJKKLJKSUR¿OH¿DVFRVVXFKDVWKH&RFND\QH Project brought the issue of cloth into sharp relief, it was the day-to-day friction VXUURXQGLQJDOLHQLQYROYHPHQWWKDWSOD\HGWKHPRVWVLJQL¿FDQWUROHLQVWHUHRW\SH IRUPDWLRQ7KHFORWKLQGXVWU\ZKHWKHULQWKHIRUPRIZHDYLQJODFHPDNLQJG\LQJ vending or a host of other trades and practices, features prominently in anti-alien SHWLWLRQVDQGFRPSODLQWVWKURXJKRXWRXUSHULRG(QJOLVKZRUNHUVDFFXVHGDOLHQVRI unfair manufacturing practices, deceptive trading and, ultimately, the deliberate LQ¿OWUDWLRQRIJXLOGKLHUDUFKLHV6XFKRFFXSDWLRQDOO\VSHFL¿FFKDUJHVZRXOGKHOS WRGH¿QHQRWLRQVRIEHORQJLQJDQGH[FOXVLRQLQWKH&LW\RI/RQGRQ :KHWKHUZRUNLQJZLWKWH[WLOHVRUH[HUFLVLQJRWKHUYRFDWLRQVVWUDQJHUVZHUH the target of special economic restrictions, from rules regulating trade to higher rates of taxation. Parliamentary statutes stipulated that alien merchants were to reside with English hosts, forbidding direct retailing by merchant strangers, who were instead to use native-born intermediaries to sell their wares.93 The City also imposed its own rules against aliens openly practicing their crafts and selling their goods in full view of passers-by. However, both the parliamentary and civic restrictions were only sporadically enforced.94 Strangers were also subject to special rates of taxation and duties, paying twice the English amount for the lay subsidy, along with higher rates of customs to the Crown.95 The City, meanwhile, collected SDFNDJHVFDYDJHDQGEDLODJH²GXWLHVWKDWVSHFL¿FDOO\WDUJHWHGDOLHQPHUFKDQWV96 Denizens were generally liable for the same higher rates of customs and taxes as 92

See Brenner, Merchants and Revolution, pp. 210–11; Scouloudi, Returns, p. 26; Astrid Friis, Alderman Cockayne’s Project and the Cloth Trade: The Commercial Policy of England in Its Main Aspects, 1603–1625, trans. A. Fausboll (Oxford, 1927); Grell, Calvinist Exiles, pp. 42, 182. 93 See 5 Henry IV c. 9 and 16 Richard II c. 1 (Statutes of the Realm, vol. 2, pp. 145–6, 82–3). See also 5 Henry IV c. 9 and 18 Henry IV c. 4, discussed in Yungblut, Strangers, SS±+HQU\9,,,F³HQDFWHGWKDWRQO\GHQL]HQVFRXOGVHWXSKRXVHNHHSVKRS or chamber wherein they exercise their handicraft”; see Scouloudi, Returns, p. 41. See Yungblut, Strangers, pp. 61–77, for a full summary of pre-Elizabethan laws and statutes concerning aliens. 94 Scouloudi, Returns, pp. 41–2; Luu, Immigrants, p. 167. 95 For the alien subsidy see ibid., p. 143; Scouloudi, Returns, p. 17. For laws concerning aliens’ customs duties see ibid., pp. 29–30. For medieval laws regarding aliens’ customs, see Yungblut, Strangers, pp. 63–4, 66, 70–71, 97. Aliens were also liable for higher rates of tonnage and poundage; see Scouloudi, Returns, p. 29. 96 3DFNDJHZDVDFKDUJHOHYLHGE\WKH&LW\IRUWKHSDFNLQJRIVWUDQJHUV¶JRRGVIRU export, scavage for the weighing of strangers’ merchandise brought to the port, while bailage

Setting the Stage: Finding a Place in Early Modern London

39

other strangers.97 As we will see in subsequent chapters, trade and taxation were central points of friction between Londoners and strangers. Economic practice played a major role in delineating the boundaries of Englishness.98 Civic Institutions and the Creation of Difference True belonging in London came with membership in a guild and admission to the IUHHGRPRI WKH&LW\ *XLOGV KHOGDPRQRSRO\RQ WKHWUDLQLQJRI ZRUNHUV 8SRQ completion of apprenticeship came the right to set up shop, as well as the ability to participate in the cultural and political life of one’s company. And with this full membership came the freedom of the City, civic citizenship. If entry to a guild was the gateway to full participation in one’s occupation, entry to the freedom opened the door to the full civic rights of a Londoner. In theory, if not in practice, one FRXOGWKHQULVHWKURXJKWKHUDQNVRIWKHFLYLFKLHUDUFK\YRWLQJLQHOHFWLRQVIRU&LW\ JRYHUQPHQWVWDQGLQJIRURI¿FHRQHVHOIHYHQSHUKDSVULVLQJWRWKHSRVLWLRQRI lord mayor. The City may have been a meritocracy in myth only (and perhaps not HYHQWKHQ EXWLWLVGLI¿FXOWWRRYHUVWDWHWKHLPSRUWDQFHRIERWKJXLOGPHPEHUVKLS and freedom in conferring belonging. As we will see, the rights of strangers to each varied in both law and practice. Struggles over guild membership and civic citizenship would come to shape both local and national identity. Guild Membership ,IIUHHGRPZDVWKHGH¿QLQJPDUNHURIEHORQJLQJLQ/RQGRQDQGJXLOGPHPEHUVKLS its gateway, then apprenticeship, as the manner in which one entered a guild, was WKHNH\WREHFRPLQJD/RQGRQHU7KHLPSRUWDQFHRIDSSUHQWLFHVKLSOLHVQRWMXVW with its status as a stepping stone to civic citizenship, though seven out of every was “the duty paid for the surveying and delivery of goods brought by stranger merchants by land or sea for export through the Thames by way of London”; see ibid., p. 30. 97 See below, pp. 49–50, for a discussion of the nature of denizen status; 22 Henry 9,,,FFRQ¿UPLQJDQHDUOLHUVWDWXWHRI+HQU\9,,VWLSXODWHGWKDWGHQL]HQVZHUHWRSD\ strangers’ rates for all “subsidies, customs, tolls, duties and other sums of money for their wares, merchandises” and other goods. This included dues collected both by the Crown and by towns, cities and boroughs. It excepted Hanseatic merchants. See Statutes of the Realm, vol. 3, pp. 325–6; Scouloudi, ReturnsSWKHVWDWXWHLVPLVWDNHQO\OLVWHGDV³+HQU\ VII c. 8” in ibid., p. 38 n. 79); Pettegree, Foreign Protestant Communities, p. 15. Denizens were also liable for the payment of the lay subsidy at the same, higher rate as other aliens; see Scouloudi, Returns, pp. 17–18. Yungblut’s assertion that denizens could “avoid the special customs paid by aliens” (Yungblut, Strangers, p. 78) is either incorrect or refers to a period before the Tudor statutes. 98 See Chapter 2 below for more detail on restrictions targeting alien merchants, along ZLWKWKHFRPSODLQWVJHQHUDWHGE\WKHLUVSRUDGLFHQIRUFHPHQW3DFNDJHVFDYDJHDQGEDLODJH are discussed in detail in Chapter 3 below.

Diversity and Difference in Early Modern London

40

eight freemen did indeed gain their freedom by serving as apprentices.99 As Steve Rappaport notes, it was also vital to the socialization of young men, not just into their trade or craft but into the household unit, the patriarchy and the City itself. An estimated two-thirds of all male Londoners served apprenticeships during the sixteenth century, with the average terms of service lasting around seven and a half years.100 And although the overwhelming majority of apprentices were men, ZRPHQZHUHQRWXQNQRZQ7KHLVVXHRIIHPDOHDSSUHQWLFHVKDGEHHQRIVXI¿FLHQW cause for concern for the Company of Weavers to forbid the training of women in ZLWKD¿QHRIVGIRUHDFKIHPDOHDSSUHQWLFH 7KHGRXEOLQJRIWKLV¿QH in 1577 indicates ongoing concerns over female entry into the guild, an anxiety UHÀHFWHGLQDFFXVDWLRQVWKDWVWUDQJHUVXQGHUPLQHGERWKJXLOGDQGKRXVHKROGE\ HPSOR\LQJZRPHQZRUNHUV101 With the completion of an apprenticeship came journeyman status, along with entry into the freedom of the City.102 Although now both a full member of the guild and a citizen of the City of London, a journeyman remained, at least RI¿FLDOO\ LQ D VXERUGLQDWH SRVLWLRQ H[SHFWHG WR FRQWLQXH ZRUNLQJ IRU D PDVWHU In practice, however, some independence existed. After the labor shortages that IROORZHGWKHSODJXHSDQGHPLFRIWKHIRXUWHHQWKFHQWXU\XQRI¿FLDOMRXUQH\PHQ¶V RUJDQL]DWLRQVKDGGHYHORSHGWKDWPDGHLWHDVLHUIRUZRUNHUVWRDFKLHYHDGHJUHH of autonomy prior to attaining the status of master. By the sixteenth century these had gained legitimacy as the voice of the company’s yeomen, and came to include both those yet to set up their own shops and householders, small masters who were employers in their own right.103 Although the latter came to dominate the yeomen’s 99

Rappaport, Worlds within Worlds, p. 291. Of around 34,000 men who became free of the City between the 1530s and the 1600s, 87 percent did so via apprenticeship. A further 9 percent received freedom by patrimony, and 4 percent by redemption; see ibid., p. 291. Although Ian Archer accepts Rappaport’s assessment of the number of Londoners HQMR\LQJWKHIUHHGRPKHTXHVWLRQVWKHLPSDFWRIWKHVH¿JXUHVRQRXUYLHZRIVXERUGLQDWLRQ and political exclusion. As he notes: “a substantial minority of the inhabitants endured a subordinate status and were denied participation in the City’s livery companies and the EHQH¿WVWKDWGHULYHGIURPPHPEHUVKLS´$UFKHUPursuit of StabilityS$QGLIZHWDNH into account the general practice of excluding women from apprenticeship and the freedom WKHQXPEHURI/RQGRQHUVEHQH¿WLQJIURPFLWL]HQVKLSSUHVXPDEO\GURSVEHORZKDOI 100 Rappaport, Worlds within Words, p. 294. 101 Consitt, London Weavers’ Company, p. 135. For accusations that strangers trained ZRPHQWRZRUNVHH&KDSWHUEHORZSS± 102 Rappaport, Worlds within Worlds, p. 24. 103 Ibid., pp. 219–24; Unwin, Gilds and Companies, pp. 224–31. Early modern sources often use the terms “yeoman” and “journeyman” interchangeably. As George Unwin notes, the former was a relative term, signifying “a person in a period of probation DQGVXERUGLQDWLRQRQHZKRLVRXWVLGHWKHUDQNVRIWKHIXOO\SULYLOHJHG´LELGS7KH Oxford English Dictionary LGHQWL¿HVLWV0LGGOH(QJOLVKURRWVZLWKWKDWRI³\RXQJPDQ´VHH OED, s.v. “yeoman.” The records of the Weavers’ Company use “youngman” and “yeoman” synonymously; see Chapter 2 below, pp. 67–8.

Setting the Stage: Finding a Place in Early Modern London

41

RUJDQL]DWLRQVZLWKLQPRVWJXLOGVVTXHH]LQJRXWWKHLQÀXHQFHRIWKHMRXUQH\PHQ the two groups, employees and employers, had enough shared economic interests to ensure the viability of their alliance. And although journeymen were in a subordinate position, it was a temporary status to be endured before moving on to set up one’s own household as a master.104 As we will see, the yeomen of the weaver’s guild were organized enough to mount a campaign against the perceived DOLHQLQ¿OWUDWLRQRIWKHLURUJDQL]DWLRQ¶VJRYHUQPHQW105 The role of strangers within the City companies varied widely, with the DGPLVVLRQRIERWKDOLHQVDQGWKHLU(QJOLVKERUQSURJHQ\FDXVLQJFRQÀLFWWKURXJKRXW our period. The 1583 Return of Strangers required the City companies to list those DOLHQVWKH\KDGDGPLWWHGGXULQJWKHSUHYLRXVVL[\HDUVGHPRQVWUDWLQJDSDWFKZRUN of prerequisites. Twenty-seven guilds gave details of the strangers admitted, 11 RI ZKRP KDG VDWLV¿HG ³VSHFLDO FRQGLWLRQV´ 7KHVH FRQGLWLRQV YDULHG IURP WKH paying of higher rates of quarterage (the Armourers), to the need for Letters Patent IURPWKH&URZQWKH%ODFNVPLWKV WRDGPLVVLRQRQO\DIWHUSD\PHQWRIDVSHFLDO fee (the Dyers) and the restrictive licensing of strangers for a particular art (the +DEHUGDVKHUVIRUIHOWPDNLQJ ,QVKRUWWKHUHZDVQRVWDQGDUGSROLF\WRZDUGVWKH admission of aliens into guilds, but special conditions usually applied. In all but RQHNQRZQFDVHWKHQXPEHURIVWUDQJHUVDGPLWWHGWRDJXLOGZDVVPDOOXQGHUWHQ DQG XVXDOO\ OHVV WKDQ ¿YH7KH H[FHSWLRQ ZDV WKH &RPSDQ\ RI:HDYHUV ZKLFK listed 80 journeymen and 73 masters, all of whom had paid special rates. A further 11 companies recorded no aliens admitted, though many of these listed strangers who practiced their trades without permission. Five more guilds stated that they received special dues from a small number of unlicensed strangers.106 Guild membership was, in any case, not the same gateway to independence IRUDQDOLHQDVIRUVRPHRQHGH¿QHGDV(QJOLVK$6WDU&KDPEHUGHFUHHRI had prohibited all but denizens from setting up their own shops, a policy which KDG WKH HIIHFW RI ³VZHOOLQJ WKH ORZHU UDQNV RI WKH FRPSDQLHV´ WKURXJKRXW WKH sixteenth century.107 In 1574 the Court of Common Council tightened restrictions 104 Rappaport, Worlds within Worlds, p. 224. Unwin argues that, at least in the FORWKZRUNHUV¶ JXLOG WKH SRZHU RI MRXUQH\PHQ ZDV HFOLSVHG E\ VPDOO PDVWHUV ZLWKLQ yeomen’s organizations. However, the yeomanry came to represent the guild’s “industrial interest,” that of “the manufacturing small masters as opposed to the mercantile interest of the ruling body”; Unwin, Gilds and Companies, p. 231. 105 See Chapter 2, below; Ward, Metropolitan Communities, ch. 6. 106 Scouloudi, Returns, pp. 43–4. As Joseph Ward notes, the Weavers’ Company was ³DOHDGHU´LQWKHWDNLQJRIDOLHQVDVPHPEHUV³DGPLWWLQJEHWZHHQHLJKWDQGWHQDOLHQVLQD typical year during the early decades of the seventeenth century into a guild that was, by the 1650s, registering some 320 apprentices every year”; Ward, Metropolitan Communities, p. 126. The guild admitted strangers under a special category of “foreign brethren,” which included charging higher rates for alien membership; see Chapter 2 below, p. 67; Ward, ³>,@PSOR\PHQWIRUDOOKDQGHV´S 107 Unwin, Gilds and Companies, p. 250.

Diversity and Difference in Early Modern London

42

even further, limiting apprenticeships to those whose father was himself born within the realm of English paternity. As Laura Hunt Yungblut notes, if implemented, “this proposal would debar virtually everyone in London’s immigrant community from employment in a craft.”108 The number of strangers listed as guild members LQWKH5HWXUQVXJJHVWVODFNRIHQIRUFHPHQWDVGRHVWKHQHHGIRUVLPLODUFLYLF OHJLVODWLRQLQ1HYHUWKHOHVVWKH&RXUWRI$OGHUPHQZDVPDNLQJUHIHUHQFHWR the 1574 restrictions as late as 1611, suggesting that the authorities never formally rescinded the bill.109 And although City companies clearly did grant membership WRVWUDQJHUVDVLJQL¿FDQWFHLOLQJWRWKHLUXSZDUGPRELOLW\H[LVWHGLQWKHLULQDELOLW\ to become householders.110 0DVWHUVDORQJZLWKWDNLQJDSSUHQWLFHVKDGWKHULJKWWRKROGRI¿FHZLWKLQWKHLU JXLOG %\ WKH VL[WHHQWK FHQWXU\ ERGLHV NQRZQ DV &RXUWV RI$VVLVWDQWV JRYHUQHG most companies, usually composed of “between twelve and twenty assistants and two to four wardens.”111 The position of assistant was life-long, while that of ZDUGHQ²LWVHOIGUDZQIURPWKHDVVLVWDQWV²JHQHUDOO\ODVWHGD\HDURUVR5DWKHU WKDQDFWLYHO\VHHNLQJDUROHLQFRPSDQ\JRYHUQPHQWDPDVWHUJHQHUDOO\KDGWR ZDLWIRUH[LVWLQJZDUGHQVDQGDVVLVWDQWVWRVXPPRQKLPLQWRWKHLUUDQNV*XLOG JRYHUQPHQW ZDV ROLJDUFKLFDO LQ QDWXUH ZLWK SRZHU ÀRZLQJ IURP WKH WRS GRZQ rather than the bottom up.112 And while such duties could be onerous in nature and VRPHWLPHVHQIRUFHGE\WKHWKUHDWRID¿QHDSSRLQWPHQWVWRFRPSDQ\JRYHUQPHQW IROORZHG DV -RVHSK :DUG QRWHV ³D ZHOONQRZQ SDWWHUQ EDVHG RQ VHQLRULW\ DQG wealth.”113 Aliens presumably had a limited role in guild government. However, VRPH/RQGRQZHDYHUVGLGDFFXVHWKHLUJXLOG¶VFRXUWRIIDOOLQJXQGHUWKHLQÀXHQFH 108

Yungblut, Strangers, pp. 105–6. Lien Luu notes that the act eliminated “one crucial difference between an alien and a denizen,” possibly contributing to declining denization by strangers; see Luu, Immigrants, p. 144. 109 CLRO, Rep. 30, fol. 50r, discussed in Chapter 3 below, p. 100. See Luu, Immigrants, p. 243, for the further legislation of 1575. The contents of the 1574 bill and its implications are discussed below in Chapter 3, pp. 91–2. Yungblut’s statement that the aldermen rescinded the legislation “after pressure from the Privy Council and a number RI RWKHU LQÀXHQWLDO LQGLYLGXDOV´ <XQJEOXW Strangers, p. 106) appears to be incorrect. Pettegree notes both orders for the Act’s enforcement the year after its passage and the failure of stranger churches to enact parliamentary legislation to counter it; see Pettegree, Foreign Protestant CommunitiesS,FDQ¿QGQRUHIHUHQFHWRWKH&RPPRQ&RXQFLO¶V bill in the volumes of the Acts of the Privy Council for the years immediately following its passage (Acts of the Privy Council, 1571–75, 1575–77) nor in the Calendar of State Papers, Domestic for 1574–77 (CSP Dom., (OL],YRO>±@  110 Joseph Ward argues, however, that despite such restrictions the number of VWUDQJHUVEURXJKWLQWRWKHJXLOGV²DOEHLWLQWKLVFLUFXPVFULEHGPDQQHU²ZDVFUXFLDOWRWKHLU assimilation and the overall adjustment of civic institutions to metropolitan expansion; see Ward, Metropolitan Communities, p. 126. 111 Ibid., p. 83. 112 Unwin, Gilds and Companies, pp. 217–18; Ward, Metropolitan Communities, p. 83. 113 Unwin, Gilds and Companies, p. 218; Ward, Metropolitan Communities, p. 83.

Setting the Stage: Finding a Place in Early Modern London

43

of the children of immigrants. A 1627 petition by the “commonalty” of the guild to the lord mayor and aldermen of the City alleged that “the sons of aliens or strangers are become bailiff, warden and assistant of our Company,” and accused DOLHQLQÀXHQFHGPHPEHUVRIWKHKLHUDUFK\RILQWHUIHULQJLQSUHYLRXVDWWHPSWVWR investigate the role of strangers.114 The Freedom of the City If status as a master meant becoming an independent householder, so the freedom of the City, granted upon completion of apprenticeship, accorded a degree of political autonomy. Once he gained the full rights of citizenship a freeman could KROGPXQLFLSDORI¿FHDQGYRWHIRUERGLHVVXFKDVWKH&RXUWRI&RPPRQ&RXQFLO Freemen also held a monopoly on buying and selling to non-citizens.115 Moreover, “free” status was a privilege that the majority of male Londoners participated LQ %\  WZRWKLUGV RI WKH &LW\¶V PDOH SRSXODWLRQ HQMR\HG WKH EHQH¿WV RI citizenship.116 Most freemen were sworn in during a ceremony at the Guildhall, usually immediately following entry as journeymen into their guild. It was also SRVVLEOHWRJDLQFLWL]HQVKLSE\SDWULPRQ\²LQKHULWDQFHRIRQH¶VIDWKHU¶VVWDWXV²RU by redemption, the payment of a hefty fee to both the City and a guild.117 The extent and manner to which aliens achieved civic citizenship mirrors guild PHPEHUVKLSLQLWVLQFRQVLVWHQF\DQGUHOLDQFHXSRQH[FHSWLRQ0RVWVLJQL¿FDQWO\ WKRVHVWUDQJHUVOXFN\HQRXJKWREHFRPHPHPEHUVRIDJXLOGGLGnot automatically receive the freedom of the City upon completion of their apprenticeship.118 In 1524 the Court of Common Council ruled that no person could acquire freedom by UHGHPSWLRQ XQOHVV ERUQ XQGHU WKH VRYHUHLJQW\ RI WKH NLQJ +RZHYHU VWUDQJHUV FRQWLQXHGWRSXUFKDVHFLWL]HQVKLSLQWKLVZD\XVXDOO\DWWKHEHKHVWRILQÀXHQWLDO

114

GL, MS 4647, f 94r. See Chapter 2, below, for a discussion of this controversy, which is also addressed in Ward, Metropolitan Communities, ch. 6. 115 Rappaport, Worlds within Worlds, pp. 29–30. 116 Ibid., p. 53. See also Valerie Pearl, “Change and Stability in Seventeenthcentury London,” London Journal, 5 (1979): 3–34. The ideological underpinnings of the historiographical debate concerning political participation in London should also be noted. While Pearl and Rappaport emphasize the extent to which the City’s myriad institutions afforded participation and defused crisis, Ian Archer has highlighted the ongoing presence of coercion and social control; Archer, Pursuit of Stability. Michael Berlin suggests that Pearl’s assault on “the so-called ‘crisis school’” in particular hints at “the larger ideological contests of the late 1970s and early 1980s”; see Michael Berlin, “Reordering Rituals: Ceremony and WKH3DULVK±´LQ*ULI¿WKVDQG-HQQHUHGV Londinopolis, pp. 49–50. 117 Rappaport, Worlds within WorldsSS±$VPDOOQXPEHURIFLYLFRI¿FHV DOVRFDUULHGWKHEHQH¿WRIFLWL]HQVKLSVHHLELGS 118 Irene Scouloudi concludes that “strangers were admitted to the freedom of the City … although not as a corollary to membership of a City company”; Scouloudi, Returns, p. 12.

Diversity and Difference in Early Modern London

44

individuals and at the protest of City authorities.119 Indeed, redemption was the most common way for strangers to achieve the freedom, although the price was steep: fees to the City were as much as £20, while those to individual guilds varied between £2 and £20.120 The number of strangers made free, though hard to determine, appears to have been relatively small: the Dugdale manuscript of the 1593 Returns lists 3,930 strangers, describing 70 individuals as “free denizens” (an ambiguous term sometimes, but not always, indicating both freedom of the City and status as denizen of the realm).121 Yet as we will see, although their absolute numbers were not large, the issue of freedom for strangers played a major role in Crown–City tensions, pointing to diverging notions of who should fully belong in London’s 26 wards. Structures of City Government Company elites governed the City of London, with prominent guild members VWDI¿QJWKHWZRPDLQLQVWLWXWLRQVRIFLYLFDGPLQLVWUDWLRQWKH&RXUWVRI$OGHUPHQ and Common Council. The common councilors exerted a monopoly on the granting of citizenship by redemption, had a veto on the raising of taxes and frequently offered advice to the aldermen on weighty matters.122 The Council received delegates from each ward of the City, although the number per ward varied from as little as two to as many as 16. The total number of councilors also changed over time, depending on ward divisions and the numbers that each ward elected. Stow listed 202 members in 1598 (though Archer and Rappaport both count 212).123 In order to stand as councilor, a candidate had to be both free of the 119

Ibid., pp. 9–12. As Scouloudi notes, “the greater number of requests for redemption FDPHIURPWKHFURZQRUVRPHRWKHUKLJKRI¿FLDORQEHKDOIRIVRPHSURWpJpSDVVHGRQWRD &LW\RI¿FLDORUJURXSRIRI¿FLDOV´LELGS'HVSLWHWKH&RPPRQ&RXQFLO¶VUXOLQJ in April 1599 the City considered the possibility of admitting some strangers to the freedom by redemption as a solution to the problem of the prevalence of non-citizen labor; see ibid., p. 10. 120 Rappaport, Worlds within Worlds, pp. 292, 292 n. 9. 121 Scouloudi, ReturnsSS:KLOH/LHQ/XXGH¿QHV³IUHHGHQL]HQ´DVGHQRWLQJ someone “who possessed both a letter of denization and the freedom of the city,” Irene 6FRXORXGLVXJJHVWVDOHVVGH¿QLWHUHDGLQJLQGLFDWLQJDVWUDQJHUZKR³KHOGWKHIUHHGRPRI the City and possibly as well, but not automatically, a Patent of Denization granted by the crown”; see Lien Luu, “Natural-born Versus Stranger-born Subjects: Aliens and their Status in Elizabethan London,” in Goose and Luu (eds.), Immigrants in Tudor and Early Stuart England, p. 62; Scouloudi, Returns, p. 9. For denizen status as granted by the Crown, see below, p. 49. As Scouloudi notes, ultimately we “have no conception as to the number of grants of freedom given. There is no extant record,” the City’s freedom rolls having been lost; Scouloudi, Returns, pp. 13, 9. 122 Rappaport, Worlds within Worlds, pp. 174–5. 123 )RUYDULDWLRQVLQWKHQXPEHURIFRXQFLORUVLQFOXGLQJ¿JXUHVSURYLGHGE\6WRZDQG other sources, see John James Baddeley, The Aldermen of Cripplegate Ward from A.D. 1276

Setting the Stage: Finding a Place in Early Modern London

45

City and a householder in the ward in which he was to run.124 Yet as in the case RIFRPSDQ\JRYHUQPHQWFRPPRQFRXQFLORUVGLGQ¶WVRPXFKVWDQGIRURI¿FHDV receive a summons from above: aldermen, together with wealthy ward members, H[HUFLVHGDPDMRUUROHLQFKRRVLQJWKHFDQGLGDWHV,QWKH¿IWHHQWKFHQWXU\WKLVKDG amounted to the direct appointment of councilors by the aldermen, though by the seventeenth century freemen of the ward who paid scot and lot acted as electors. Despite the appearance of democracy the aldermen still wielded substantial power, both in the nomination of candidates and in the actual elections. Here the emphasis lay not just in candidates who were freemen, but on those who were liverymen of their companies.125 Most also tended to be among their ward’s richest men.126 Most civic power rested with the Court of Aldermen, one of whom was elected from each of London’s 26 wards. The court was responsible for setting the legislative agenda of the Common Council, exercised a high degree of judicial SRZHUERWKLQDQGRILWVHOIDQGE\VXSHUYLVLQJRWKHUFRXUWV DQGH[HUWHGLQÀXHQFH through the presence of its members on a range of committees.127 As subsequent chapters will show, its power gave it a major role in deciding who belonged in the &LW\7KHPDQQHULQZKLFKWKHZDUGVHOHFWHGDOGHUPHQUHÀHFWVERWKWKHROLJDUFKLF inertia of London’s civic government and the need for the appearance of consent. Assembling in a wardmote, the freemen of each ward chose four candidates for HOHFWLRQ7KH FXUUHQW DOGHUPHQ HLWKHU SLFNHG RQH RI WKHVH RU UHMHFWHG WKH HQWLUH slate. In the event of a rejection, the freemen of the ward had three more chances WRSURSRVHDVKRUWOLVWRIFDQGLGDWHVEHIRUHWKHDOGHUPHQVLPSO\SLFNHGWKHLURZQ Once appointed to the court, aldermen ruled for life.1287KHTXDOL¿FDWLRQVIRUWKH nominees ensured an elite pedigree: aldermen were to be freemen, born within WKHNLQJGRPWRDQ(QJOLVKIDWKHUDQGDOLYHU\PDQRIRQHRIWKHPDMRUJXLOGV (although there were a growing number of exceptions to this latter stipulation by the seventeenth century). They also needed a net worth of at least £10,000.129 7KHKLJKHVWRI¿FHLQWKH&LW\ZDVWKDWRIWKHORUGPD\RUDSRVLWLRQRIJUHDW importance within the realm itself. As we will see, the lord mayor often served WR$'7RJHWKHUZLWK6RPH$FFRXQWRIWKH2I¿FHRI$OGHUPDQ$OGHUPDQ¶V'HSXW\ and Common Councilman of the City of London (London, 1900), pp. 216–17; Rappaport, Worlds within Worlds, p. 175; Archer, Pursuit of Stability, p. 19. 124 Baddeley, Aldermen of Cripplegate, p. 223. 125 Pearl, London, pp. 54–5, 138–9. 126 Archer, Pursuit of Stability, p. 19. 127 Ibid., pp. 18–19; Rappaport, Worlds within Worlds, pp. 174–5. 128 Ibid., p. 174. Rappaport points out that during the sixteenth century the aldermen rejected the shortlist of a ward and appointed their own candidate only four times, suggesting WKDWDOWKRXJKIDUIURPGHPRFUDWLF³WKHDEVHQFHRIFRQÀLFWUHÀHFWVWKHIDFWWKDWDOGHUPHQ ZHUH FRQVFLRXV RI FKHFNV XSRQ WKHLU SRZHUV´ LELG 3HDUO RQ WKH RWKHU KDQG VWDWHV WKDW dismissal of candidates was “a power which they could and did use to silence opposition to their policy”; Pearl, London, p. 59. 129 Ibid., pp. 59–60.

Diversity and Difference in Early Modern London

46

as the point of contact between civic and central government; communications EHWZHHQKLVRI¿FHWKH&URZQDQGWKH3ULY\&RXQFLOSURYLGHDZLQGRZRQGLVSXWHV RYHUZKREHORQJHGLQWKH&LW\DQGZKRTXDOL¿HGDVIXOO\(QJOLVK:LWKLQ/RQGRQ the lord mayor had the power to dissolve the City’s two councils, authority over the guilds and a number of courts, and the right to name three people as citizens by redemption.130 The lord mayor was elected by a meeting of Common Hall, a body which only he had the power to summon or dismiss, acting in concert with the Court of Aldermen. Consisting of the liverymen of the City Companies (that is, members entitled to wear the livery of their guilds), Common Hall nominated WZRPD\RUDOFDQGLGDWHVWKH&RXUWRI$OGHUPHQWKHQSLFNHGRQHXVXDOO\DVHQLRU member of their own body.131 Common Hall was also responsible for the election of members of Parliament, as well as of the City’s sheriffs.132 The fact that it was composed of senior guild members suggests that the presence of aliens was either minimal or entirely non-existent. $WLJKWO\NQLWROLJDUFK\JRYHUQHGWKH&LW\SHUSHWXDWLQJLWVRZQUDQNVWKURXJK a process of top-down self-selection.133 And in so far as it controlled the reins of power, this group also wielded the means of exclusion. Yet the ability to delineate difference, to include some within the fold of belonging while denying entry WR RWKHUV SHUPHDWHG DOO RI WKH LQVWLWXWLRQV DQG RI¿FHV GLVFXVVHG KHUH IURP WKH smallest guild to the lord mayor and Court of Aldermen. Regardless of their place 130

Ibid., p. 63. Ibid., pp. 50–51. There is, however, some confusion over the number of liverymen, as well as whether elections in Common Hall were open to others. Pearl suggests that liverymen numbered around 4,000 by 1650. She is also open to Clarendon’s statement that ³WKHPHDQHVWSHUVRQ´ZDVDGPLWWHGDOWKRXJKVKHDFNQRZOHGJHVWKHODFNRIGLUHFWHYLGHQFH see ibid. Archer asserts that liverymen numbered 2,500 towards the end of Elizabeth’s reign, or 10 percent of householders; see Archer, Pursuit of Stability, p. 19. 132 Ibid. 133 Steve Rappaport and Ian Archer have disagreed over the extent to which the constitution and franchise of the City allowed for wider political participation. Rappaport has argued that the power of Common Council was increasing during this period, and therefore that the formal power base was widening. Moreover, he questions the attention paid by historians to the oligarchies controlling City institutions, arguing that real power was distributed throughout “the substructure of urban society,” in the City’s “wards, precincts and parishes” and throughout the guilds; see Rappaport, Worlds within Worlds, pp. 175–6, ,DQ$UFKHUKDVWDNHQLVVXHZLWK5DSSDSRUW¶VFRQFOXVLRQVDUJXLQJWKDWKLVDWWHQWLRQWR WKHP\ULDGRIVXEVWUXFWXUHVRIIHUVOLWWOHFOXHWRWKHUHDOZD\VLQZKLFKSRZHUÀRZHGDQG WKDWKLVXQGXHHPSKDVLVRQSRSXODUSDUWLFLSDWLRQHIIDFHVFRQÀLFW³6RPHSHRSOHFOHDUO\KDG PRUHZHLJKWLQWKHGHFLVLRQPDNLQJSURFHVVEHFDXVHRIWKHHFRQRPLFSRZHUWKH\ZLHOGHG´ Archer, Pursuit of StabilityS0RUHUHFHQWO\0LFKDHO%HUOLQKDVWDNHQWKLVGHEDWHDVD call for a close analysis of power at the parish level. Perhaps not surprisingly, he has found that “Hierarchical government in the parishes … was related to that which pertained in the FLW\DQGWKHQDWLRQDVDZKROH´SDULVKSROLWLFVLQGLFDWLQJ³DVPXFKFRQÀLFWDVFRQVHQVXV´ Berlin, “Reordering Rituals,” p. 62. 131

Setting the Stage: Finding a Place in Early Modern London

47

LQWKHZLGHUGLVWULEXWLRQRISROLWLFDOSRZHUDOOKDGDSDUWLQGH¿QLQJZKREHORQJHG and who did not. Guild membership was the gateway to economic independence, a gateway that was closed to some aliens and open to others. While many companies admitted strangers, they might then face obstacles to becoming masters or playing a role in company governance. Similarly, although the Court of Common Council controlled who could gain the freedom of the City by redemption, both the DOGHUPHQDQGWKHORUGPD\RUH[HUWHGFRQVLGHUDEOHLQÀXHQFHRYHULWVDJHQGD
48

Diversity and Difference in Early Modern London

wildly, from 16 in 1605 to 35 in 1623.137 In 1662 there were 36 councilors, though its numbers in the 1660s and 1670s reached as many as 50 (actual attendance was usually less than half of that).138+RZHYHULQÀDWLQJQXPEHUVGLGQRWPHDQLQÀDWHG importance, but instead increased the chance that important decisions were made elsewhere, in smaller committees or informal meetings.139 Although their numbers ÀXFWXDWHG WKH FRXQFLORUV ZHUH DOZD\V SURPLQHQW ¿JXUHV7KH VLJQDWXUHV RQ LWV various pronouncements varied, but a random sampling from 1624 includes the archbishop of Canterbury, the lord privy seal, lord chamberlain, the treasurer and comptroller, the master of the rolls and Lords Calvert, Carew and Chichester.140 During the Commonwealth, the body was replaced by the Council of State. 3DUOLDPHQWQRZFKRVHLWVPHPEHUVDQGWKH¿UVWZDVFRPSRVHGRIPHQ7KRXJK the membership varied between Councils of State, a core group ensured the same degree of continuity as had existed under the Privy Council.141 And as we will see, LWVUHODWLRQVKLSWRWKH&LW\LQPDWWHUVRIGLIIHUHQFHUHPDLQHGVWULNLQJO\VLPLODUWR that of its royalist predecessor. Becoming English? Denization and Naturalization +DG+DQV3HPDEOHUHPDLQHGLQ/RQGRQKDGKHEHHQOXFN\HQRXJKWR¿QGZRUNLQ his trade as a goldsmith, and had the guild of his profession granted him membership, KRZ PXFK GLIIHUHQFH ZRXOG KLV DOLHQ VWDWXV KDYH PDGH" (YHQ ZLWK WKH OXFN RI having all of these provisions met, Pemable could have faced strict obstacles to equal treatment. If he became a member of the Company of Goldsmiths, he might have been able to set up his own shop, perhaps even becoming a master.142 Yet he would not have received the freedom of the City as part of his guild membership and so would have had limited rights in relation to civic government. His most FUHGLEOH²\HWKLJKO\LPSUREDEOH²FKDQFHIRUFLYLFFLWL]HQVKLSZRXOGKDYHEHHQ 137 Michael Barraclough Pulman, The Elizabethan Privy Council in the Fifteen-seventies %HUNHOH\&$ S(GZDUG5D\PRQG7XUQHUThe Privy Council of England in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries, 1603–1784, vol. 1, Semicentennial Publications of WKH-RKQV+RSNLQV8QLYHUVLW\±%DOWLPRUH0' S)RUDQH[DPLQDWLRQ of the role of the Council, along with Parliament, in the resolution of provincial disputes, see David M. Dean, “Parliament, Privy Council, and Local Politics in Elizabethan England: The Yarmouth–Lowestoft Fishing Dispute,” Albion, 22/1 (1990): 39–64. 138 Turner, Privy Council, p. 377, p. 388. 139 Coward, Stuart Age, pp. 82–3. 140 Acts of the Privy Council, James I, vol. 6 (4 June 1623–28 March 1625), p. 392. 7KHVH¿JXUHVKDGVLJQHGWKHLUQDPHWRDSDVVIRURQH6LU7KRPDV1RUWRQRI%REELQJ.HQW to travel “into foreign parts” for three years, with the priviso “not to go to Rome.” 141 Turner, Privy Council, pp. 243–56. 142 Lien Luu notes that between “1558 and 1598, more than 500 aliens were admitted LQWRWKH>*ROGVPLWKV¶@&RPSDQ\HLWKHUDVMRXUQH\PHQRUPDVWHU´/XXImmigrants, p. 226.

Setting the Stage: Finding a Place in Early Modern London

49

WKURXJKWKHLQWHUYHQWLRQRIDQLQÀXHQWLDOQREOHSULY\FRXQFLORURUPHPEHURIUR\DOW\ willing to press the lord mayor for his freedom by redemption. And the mayor might well have denied this request, even if it had come from the queen herself. Could Pemable have circumvented the City’s rules concerning strangers by EHFRPLQJ(QJOLVK"2XWULJKWQDWXUDOL]DWLRQPDNLQJRQHIXOO\(QJOLVKLQWKHH\HV of the law, was rare in this period, granted only by Act of Parliament and usually reserved for foreign-born children of English parents who had lived abroad. %HFRPLQJ D GHQL]HQ ZDV DQ RSWLRQ WKRXJK RQH WKDW ZDV QR PRUH OLNHO\ WKDQ gaining the freedom of the City. Only royal Letters Patent could grant denization, a process that required access to power (or at least a favorable response to one’s petition) and the ability to pay (with amounts in the sixteenth century varying from as little as 6s. 8d. to as much as £2 12s. 4d.).143 The delay between initial entry of WKHJUDQWRIGHQL]DWLRQDQGDFWXDOHQWU\RIWKHSDWHQWFRXOGWDNHDVOLWWOHDVDIHZ days, or as much as several months.144 In theory, status as denizen entered the recipient into a bond of allegiance with WKHPRQDUFK+RZHYHUXQOLNHRXWULJKWQDWXUDOL]DWLRQGHQL]DWLRQGLGQRWJUDQWDOO of the rights of subjecthood. A denizen remained an alien by birth, and thus was still prohibited by law from inheriting lands, as well as from bequeathing land to children born prior to the date of denization. Denizens did have the right to initiate lawsuits, although they generally paid taxes and customs as aliens. Denizen VWDWXVXQOLNHQDWXUDOL]DWLRQFDPHGLUHFWO\IURPWKH&URZQDOWKRXJKDWWLPHVORUG FKDQFHOORUVZHUHDOVRJLYHQGLVFUHWLRQWRPDNHJUDQWVRIGHQL]DWLRQ145 Not surprisingly, the number of strangers receiving either denization or naturalization was relatively small. Between 1558 and 1640 there were 2,778 patents of denization and 83 Acts of naturalization. Of the denizations, 1,962 fell within Elizabeth’s reign, only 293 of which were in the last 24 years of her rule. James I granted a mere 530 people denization, falling to 286 under Charles I. Restrictions 143 Naturalization, on the other hands, could cost as much as £100; see Scouloudi, Returns, p. 4. 144 6FRXORXGLGRHVSURYLGHRQHFDVHWKDWWRRND\HDUDQGDKDOIVHHLELG)RUGHWDLOV concerning the rights granted by denization and naturalization, see William Page, Letters of Denization and Acts of Naturalization for Aliens in England, 1509–1603, Publications of the Huguenot Society of London, vol. 8 (Lymington, 1893), pp. i–ii; Yungblut, Strangers, p. 78; Scouloudi, Returns, pp. 3–4. 145 Page, Letters, pp. i–ii; Yungblut, Strangers, p. 78 (although her statement here that denizens avoided paying aliens’ customs appears to be incorrect); Scouloudi, Returns, pp. 3–4. For denizens’ payments of taxes and customs, see pp. 38–9 above. The Privy &RXQFLODOVRUHTXHVWHGWKHORUGPD\RURI/RQGRQWRPDNHRQH0DUWLQ$OOHPD\QHDGHQL]HQ in 1552, a practice which seems to be an anomaly, if not a one-off event; see Page, Letters, SLL6FRXORXGLPHQWLRQVRWKHUJUDQWVE\WKH&URZQWRDVPDOOQXPEHURIRI¿FLDOVJLYLQJ WKHP D OLPLWHG ULJKW WR PDNH DOLHQV LQWR GHQL]HQV LQFOXGLQJ RQH WR 7KRPDV :ROVH\ LQ 1518; see Scouloudi, ReturnsS$Q$FWRIUHTXLUHGSHUVRQVQDWXUDOL]HGWRWDNHWKH Oath of Allegiance and receive Anglican Communion. Denizen status, however, carried no religious tests; see Dummett and Nicol, Subjects, Citizens, Aliens, p. 58.

50

Diversity and Difference in Early Modern London

from 1574 on the rights of the children of denizens to serve apprenticeships, even if not strictly enforced, may well have contributed to the declining numbers of strangers applying for Letters Patent. Naturalizations grew over time, but the numbers were miniscule when compared to the overall stranger population: only 12 under Elizabeth, 37 under James and 34 under Charles.146 In the second half of the seventeenth century, however, several Acts of Parliament began to expand the role RIQDWXUDOL]DWLRQ,QNHHSLQJZLWKSDVWSUDFWLFHFKLOGUHQRIUR\DOLVWVERUQDEURDG GXULQJWKHLQWHUUHJQXPDQGWKRVHRI(QJOLVKVXEMHFWVVHUYLQJWKHNLQJRYHUVHDV won the right to naturalization in 1677 and 1698 respectively. Of greater relevance WRVWUDQJHUVD$FWJUDQWHGHIIHFWLYHQDWXUDOL]DWLRQWRKHPSDQGÀD[GUHVVHUV QHW PDNHUV DQG WDSHVWU\ ZHDYHUV ZKR KDG SUDFWLFHG WKHLU WUDGHV LQ (QJODQG IRU three years. However, moves towards a standardized process of naturalization for all aliens would not begin until the following century.147 Even as a denizen, Pemable would have faced obstacles within the City. Such a status, although providing a degree of de facto Englishness in the eyes of the Crown, did little to efface foreignness in the minds of many civic and guild RI¿FLDOV 5HVLVWDQFH WR WKH JUDQWLQJ RI IUHHGRP WR GHQL]HQV DERXQGHG DV GLG hostility to their presence within company hierarchies, despite pressure from the &URZQDQGFHQWUDOJRYHUQPHQW+DQV3HPDEOH¶VRQO\UHFRXUVHWRIXOOEHORQJLQJ² DVVXPLQJ KLV GHVLUH IRU DVVLPLODWLRQ ZDV WKLV VWURQJ²ZRXOG SHUKDSV OLH ZLWK his offspring. Yet here too, both for any English-born children as well as for his grandchildren, running afoul of the City was a distinct possibility. The reasons for VXFKLQWUDQVLJHQFHRQWKHSDUWRIFLYLFRI¿FLDOVWRJHWKHUZLWKZKDWWKHVHSDWWHUQV of exclusion tell us about Londoners’ response to the diversity of their metropolis, will be explored in the following chapters.

146 Scouloudi, Returns, p. 5. The impact of restrictions on apprenticeship are noted in Luu, Immigrants, p. 144. See above, p. 42, and Chapter 3, pp. 91–2, for further discussion of the 1574 civic legislation. 147 Dummett and Nicol, Subjects, Citizens, Aliens, pp. 37, 72. In 1709 all aliens won WKH ULJKW WR QDWXUDOL]DWLRQ EHIRUH D FRXUW IRU WKH FRVW RI D VKLOOLQJ SURYLGLQJ WKH\ WRRN communion and swore support for the Protestant succession. However, this was repealed three years later (7 Ann c. 5, repealed 10 Ann c. 5); see Statt, Foreigners and Englishmen, p. 35; Clive Parry, Nationality and Citizenship Laws of the Commonwealth and of the Republic of Ireland (London, 1957), p. 65. Moreover, the 1701 Act of Settlement explicitly denied some of the rights belonging to people of English parentage to naturalized aliens. The Act prohibited naturalized subjects from becoming members “of the Privy Council, RU D PHPEHU RI HLWKHU +RXVH RI 3DUOLDPHQW´ RU WR ³HQMR\ DQ\ RI¿FH RU SODFH RI WUXVW either civil or military, or to have any grant of lands, tenements or hereditaments from the Crown”; cited in Dummett and Nicol, Subjects, Citizens, Aliens, p. 73. For the 1663 Act, see 15 Car. II c. 15, cited in Parry, Nationality and Citizenship Laws, p. 47. See Chapter 3 below for an extensive discussion of both subjecthood and naturalization.

Chapter 2

“No Better Than Conduit Pipes”: Occupational Practice and the Creation of Difference

In 1580 the lord mayor of the City of London wrote to the lord treasurer in response WRWKHTXHHQ¶VUHTXHVWWKDWKHWDNHDFWLRQDJDLQVWWKHWKUHDWRISODJXH7KHPD\RU HPSKDVL]HGWKDWKHZRXOGGRDOOWKDWZDVLQKLVSRZHUWR¿JKWLQIHFWLRQ$VZHOO DV WDNLQJ PHDVXUHV VXFK DV WKRVH ³IRU WKH FOHDQ NHHSLQJ RI WKH VWUHHW´ DQG ³IRU NHHSLQJRIJRRGRUGHU´KHVRXJKWDLGIURPWKH&RXQFLOIRU³VXFKPDWWHUV´DVKH GLG³ODFNSRZHUWRUHGUHVV´HQFORVLQJDOLVWRISODJXHUHODWHGJULHYDQFHVLQQHHG RIIXUWKHUDWWHQWLRQ$VEH¿WVHDUO\PRGHUQDWWLWXGHVWRZDUGVGLVHDVHWKHPD\RU called attention to causes of the plague that were both natural and supernatural in origin: “some things,” he wrote, “have double peril both naturally in spreading the infection and otherwise in drawing God’s wrath and plague upon us.” These included practices such as “the erecting and frequenting of houses very infamous for incontinent living” and “the drawing of the people from the service of God and from honest exercises to unchaste plays.” As much of a problem as these, however, was “the pestering of the city with multitudes of people.” This multitude included those of the wrong sort: the “number of strangers in and about London” FRQWULEXWHG WR WKH RXWEUHDN RI SODJXH 7KHLU SUHVHQFH ZDV SUREOHPDWLF ERWK LQ terms of the overcrowding it caused and because their religious and social practices invited divine judgment upon the whole city. The mayor complained both that ³WKHLU QXPEHU GR LQFUHDVH GDQJHU RI LQIHFWLRQ DQG RYHUEXUGHQ RXU PDUNHW´ DQG that “many be of no church” and are “commonly uncleanly people.”1 Written during the following year, Robert Wilson’s play The Three Ladies of London presented theatergoers with similar allegations. Its archetypal stranger, Mercadore, contributed to the cost of housing in the city, letting “dem to stranger dat are content / To dwell in a little room, and to pay much rent.”2 He also damaged 1 CLRO, Remembrancia, vol. 1, fols. 18r–v. The item pointing to increased infection DQG WKH ³RYHUEXUGHQ>LQJ@ RI RXU PDUNHW´ LGHQWL¿HG ³PXOWLWXGHV RI VWUDQJHUV DQG IRUHLJQ DUWL¿FHUV´DVDSUREOHP$OWKRXJKWKHODWWHUJURXSDOVRGHQRWHV(QJOLVKPLJUDQWVWKHORUG PD\RUQRWHG³WKH4XHHQ¶VVXEMHFWVUHWDLOHUVDQGDUWL¿FHUV´DVWKRVHKDUPHG+LVUHIHUHQFH to irreligion and “uncleanly people” refers solely to strangers. 2 Robert Wilson, An Edition of Robert Wilson’s Three Ladies of London and Three Lords and Three Ladies of London, ed. H.S.D. Mithal, The Renaissance Imagination (New
52

Diversity and Difference in Early Modern London

the economy of the realm, in this case conspiring to “send away good commodities out of dis little country England.”3$QG WKRXJK VSHDNLQJ D FRPLF VWDJH ,WDOLDQ he catered to a changing population of strangers, “French mans and Flemings” who “in dis country be many.”4 Such complaints came two decades after the EHJLQQLQJRIDQHZLQÀX[RILPPLJUDQWVIURP&RQWLQHQWDO(XURSHFDXVHGLQSDUW by increased persecution of Protestants in French and Spanish lands.5 An alien presence was, of course, not new; the city had, in one form or another, played host to a variety of immigrants, from the medieval precursors of the newly arriving French and Dutch to Jews, Italians and north German Hanse.6 Yet the composition RI/RQGRQ¶VVWUDQJHUFRPPXQLW\ZDVVKLIWLQJUHÀHFWLQJEURDGHUFKDQJHVLQWKH early modern religious and economic terrain. And while continuing to draw on old antipathies, the city’s residents responded in turn, creating new stereotypes that UHÀHFWHGWKHFKDQJLQJFOLPDWH7 7KH¿QDO\HDUVRIWKHVL[WHHQWKFHQWXU\ZHUHDWLPHRILQÀDWLRQDQGGHDUWKLQ WKHFLW\DQGZRXOGVHHWKHRQJRLQJWKUHDWRISK\VLFDODWWDFNVDJDLQVWDOLHQV
“No Better Than Conduit Pipes”

53

A close reading of the language of late Elizabethan and early Stuart petitions DOORZVXVWRVHHKRZ(QJOLVKFRPSODLQDQWVGH¿QHGWKHPHDQLQJVDQGPDUJLQVRI alienness. Such language is rich and at times surprising in what it reveals about the perceived position of strangers. Londoners constituted Continental immigrants more by their occupational roles than by national stereotypes, as artisans and merchants rather than as French or Dutch, roles that implied unity, conspiracy and a wilful intent to harm the English. Mercantilist thought underwrote many of these accusations, serving not just as an economic theory, but as a powerful vocabulary IRUDUWLFXODWLQJQRWLRQVRIGLIIHUHQFH,QSURGXFLQJVXFKRFFXSDWLRQDOO\VSHFL¿F images, Londoners expressed anxieties about who and what aliens were, the harm they did to the realm, and the nature of their ultimate goals. They made statements DERXW WKH FRPSRVLWLRQ RI DOLHQV¶ KRXVHKROGV DQG ZRUNSODFHV WKHLU WLHV WR WKHLU FRXQWULHV RI RULJLQ WKHLU LQ¿OWUDWLRQ RI FLYLF LQVWLWXWLRQV DQG WKHLU UHVLVWDQFH WR assimilation. And as we will see, such allegations would prove both tenacious and ÀH[LEOHEHFRPLQJFRPPRQSODFHRYHUODWHUGHFDGHVQRWMXVWLQFRPSODLQWVDJDLQVW the French or Dutch, but also their English-born children, Jewish immigrants and UHIXJHHV IURP (XURSH¶V ERUGHUODQGV 8OWLPDWHO\ WKH\ ZRXOG KHOS WR GH¿QH WKH early modern boundaries of Englishness. Beyond Evil May Day 7KHDQWLDOLHQULRWRINQRZQDV³(YLO0D\'D\´LVSHUKDSVWKHPRVWQRWRULRXV example of the violent hostility periodically exhibited towards strangers in late medieval and early modern London. The violence followed an Easter sermon at Paul’s Cross in which the preacher, Doctor Bell, recited a list of accusations DJDLQVWDOLHQVFRPSLOHGE\-RKQ/LQFROQDEURNHU7KHVHLQFOXGHGDOOHJDWLRQVWKDW VWUDQJHUV³HDWWKHEUHDGIURPWKHSRRUIDWKHUOHVVFKLOGUHQ´WKDWWKH\³WDNHWKHOLYLQJ IURPDOOWKHDUWL¿FHUVDQGWKHLQWHUFRXUVHIURPDOOPHUFKDQWV´DQGWKDWDVDUHVXOW “craftsmen be brought to beggary and merchants to neediness.” Bell concluded his sermon by urging the English to “defend themselves and to hurt and grieve aliens for the common weal.”97KHIROORZLQJZHHNVDZVSRUDGLFDVVDXOWVRQVWUDQJHUVLQ WKH&LW\ZLWKUXPRUVVSUHDGLQJRIDJHQHUDODWWDFNWRWDNHSODFHRQ0D\'D\2Q May eve, the City authorities, in an effort to head off trouble, announced a curfew. Events soon got out of hand when an alderman, Sir John Munday, attempted to apprehend a young man for violating the curfew, leading to a general call for apprentices to defend themselves from arrest. The growing crowd freed prisoners FRPPLWWHGWR1HZJDWHDQGRWKHUMDLOVIRUSUHYLRXVDVVDXOWVDJDLQVWDOLHQVDWWDFNHG the houses of strangers and engaged in looting and destruction, particularly of the 9

(GZDUG +DOO ³7KH7ULXPSKDQW 5HLJQ RI .LQJ +HQU\9,,,´ LQ The Vnion of the Two Noble and Illustre Famelies of Lancastre [and] Yorke … To the Reigne of the High and Prudent Prince Kyng Henry the Eight, the Vndubitate Flower and Very Heire of Both the Sayd Linages (London, 1548), fol. 60v.

Diversity and Difference in Early Modern London

54

property of immigrants. However, the riots did not last long, continuing only until around 3 a.m. The authorities arrested around 300 of the participants, eventually hanging 13 of them for high treason.10 This episode became famous in later decades as an archetypal example of the dangers that friction between Londoners and the City’s immigrant community could arouse. On the stage the events of May 1517 became the focal point of the play Sir Thomas More, written in the early 1590s by Anthony Munday in FROODERUDWLRQ ZLWK :LOOLDP 6KDNHVSHDUH DQG RWKHUV11 +HUH D ¿FWLRQDOL]HG -RKQ Lincoln both repeats the words of his real-life counterpart and urges a crowd WR ³¿UH WKH KRXVHV RI WKHVH DXGDFLRXV VWUDQJHUV´12 Other characters target “hot Frenchmen” and Lombards, with the latter group featured prominently (though ODUJHO\ XQLQÀHFWHG E\ QDWLRQDO VWHUHRW\SHV 13 It is possible that the authorities HQFRXUDJHGWKHSOD\ZULJKWVWRJLYH,WDOLDQV²ZKRQRZODFNHGDVLJQL¿FDQWSUHVHQFH LQ /RQGRQ²PRUH SURPLQHQFH LQ RUGHU WR DYRLG WDUJHWLQJ WKH FLW\¶V )UHQFK DQG Dutch communities.14 And although the play reiterates Lincoln’s xenophobia, its PHVVDJHLVXOWLPDWHO\RQHRIWROHUDQFH,QOLQHVSUREDEO\ZULWWHQE\6KDNHVSHDUH 0RUHFDOPVWKH³PRXQWDQLVKLQKXPDQLW\´RIWKHULRWHUVDVNLQJWKHPWRLPDJLQH ³WKH VWUDQJHUV¶ FDVH´ WR ¿QG WKHPVHOYHV ³VSXUQ>HG@ OLNH GRJV´ ZLWK ³GHWHVWHG NQLYHV´DJDLQVWWKHLURZQWKURDWV15 Evil May Day also retained resonance outside of the theater, living on as an example of anti-stranger disorder. One early Stuart petition of anti-alien grievances included, in manuscript by another early modern hand, the observation that it: is fresh in memory that the handicrafts men of the city of London, being EXUWKHQHGZLWKVWUDQJHUV«XSRQDVXGGHQGLGWDNHDZD\WKHOLIHRIPDQ\RI

10

7KLV DFFRXQW LV WDNHQ IURP +DOO ³7KH 7ULXPSKDQW 5HLJQ RI +HQU\ 9,,,´ IROV 60r–63r, as well as a summary of Hall’s narrative in Martin Holmes, “Evil May-Day, 1517: The Story of a Riot,” History Today, 15 (1965): 642–50. See also Yungblut, Strangers, p. 73; Rappaport, Worlds within Worlds, pp. 15–17. 11 The play was written in 1592–93, although the details of its production remain obscure; see Hoenselaars, Images of Englishmen and Foreigners, pp. 50, 53. 12 Anthony Munday, The Book of Sir Thomas More, ed. W.W. Greg, Malone Society 5HSULQWVUHSU2[IRUGDQG1HZ
“No Better Than Conduit Pipes”

55

WKHPDQGWKLVLVFDOOHGLOO0D\'D\$QGLQPHPRU\RIWKDWDFWWKHFLWL]HQVNHHS a treble watch every May Day.16

,QIDFWQRRQHGLHGGXULQJWKHXQUHVW²WKHRQO\IDWDOLWLHVVHHPWRKDYHEHHQWKRVH rioters who the authorities later executed.17 Yet concerns persisted about possible hostilities towards aliens during the May holiday, together with the potential for unruliness that accompanied any popular celebration. On 29 April 1626 the Privy Council instructed the lord mayor to ready the trained bands “for the preventing of any riots, or tumults, which by the number of apprentices joining with other lewd and dissolute persons might otherwise be attempted” that May Day. The Council DOVRWRRNSDLQVWRSRLQWRXWWKDWWKH\KDG³UHFHLYHGLQIRUPDWLRQRIFHUWDLQOLEHOV dispersed about the Venetian ambassador’s house, implying some threatening >DFWLRQ@WRZDUGVKLPDQGKLVKRXVHE\ORRVHDQGYDJDERQGSHUVRQV´18 May Day, then, was a time of apprehension for the authorities, due at least in part to the legacy of the anti-alien riots of 1517. +LVWRULDQV DUH GLYLGHG RYHU WKH VLJQL¿FDQFH RI (YLO 0D\ 'D\ IRU RXU understanding of later attitudes towards immigrants. Was it, as Nigel Goose has recently argued, “the last throw of the medieval dice,” a sign that late Tudor and early Stuart England was in fact “a veritable oasis of tolerance” and that the term ‘xenophobia’ is “an epithet too far”?19 Or, as Laura Hunt Yungblut has VXJJHVWHG GLG OHVV VSHFWDFXODU RXWEUHDNV RI YLROHQFH FRQWLQXH XQDEDWHG"20 And just how important is violence anyway? Would its absence indicate an irenic society, or merely one in which harassment of strangers continued in other venues, LQ³SDUOLDPHQWDQGWKHODZFRXUWVUDWKHUWKDQ>E\@VWRQLQJWKHPLQWKHVWUHHW´"21 7KHVHGLVDJUHHPHQWVVKRZWKHGLI¿FXOWLHVLQKHUHQWLQDVNLQJTXDQWLWDWLYHTXHVWLRQV about hostility towards strangers. Attempts to gauge xenophobia all too often fall SUH\ WR ELQDU\ WKLQNLQJ HPSKDVL]LQJ WKH SUHVHQFH RU DEVHQFH RU YLROHQFH DQG the rationality or irrationality of fear and stereotype.22 The conclusions reached 16

Huntington, EL 2516, fol. 2r (c. 1615). Rappaport, Worlds within Worlds, p. 16. 18 CLRO, Remembrancia, vol. 6, fol. 87r. The Privy Council made a similar request SULRUWR0D\'D\DQGDJDLQLQDOWKRXJKZLWKRXWVSHFL¿FDOO\PHQWLRQLQJWKH threat of anti-alien activity; see TNA, PC 2/44, p. 538; TNA, PC 2/47, pp. 323–4. 19 Goose, “Xenophobia,” pp. 129, 110. Joseph Ward also agrees that historians have RYHUHPSKDVL]HGSRSXODU[HQRSKRELDVHH:DUG³)LFWLWLRXVVKRHPDNHUV´SS± 20 <XQJEOXWWDNHVLVVXHZLWK(YLO0D\'D\¶VVXSSRVHGXQLTXHQHVVOLVWLQJQXPHURXV ³DFWXDODWWDFNVDQWLFLSDWHGDWWDFNVRULQYHVWLJDWLRQVRIWKUHDWHQLQJPDWHULDOV´LQWKHGHFDGHV after 1517; see Yungblut, Strangers, p. 40. 21 Archer, Pursuit of Stability, p. 140. 22 Ian Archer has suggested that although anti-alien stereotypes contained “much that was irrational,” perceptions of danger “were real and threatening enough”; ibid., pp. 131–2. While he concedes that Londoners frequently blamed immigrants for “problems the causes of which lay elsewhere,” at least some fears were rational in relation to one’s vulnerability 17

56

Diversity and Difference in Early Modern London

can vary depending on whether or not one’s threshold for a xenophobic society LQFOXGHVRYHUWSK\VLFDODJJUHVVLRQDVZHOODVWKHLQWHUSUHWLYHGLI¿FXOWLHVLQKHUHQW in divining the motives, basis and effects of non-violent actions and rhetoric. Undue attention to either the presence or absence of events such as Evil May Day leaves us in danger of negating the role that prosaic, daily activities played LQPDNLQJGLIIHUHQFH7KHVLWHVWKDWGH¿QHGEHORQJLQJDQGH[FOXVLRQZHUHGLIIXVH dispersed throughout the city in both time and space rather than concentrated in HDVLO\LGHQWL¿DEOHYLROHQWRXWEXUVWV3URFHHGLQJVLQFRXUWFRQFHUQLQJDOLHQVZHUH much more than just harassment by other means, standing on a continuum with the ongoing stream of petitions complaining of the habits of London’s immigrants, WKHGD\WRGD\QHJRWLDWLRQVEHWZHHQRI¿FLDOVRYHUWKHDGPLVVLRQRIDOLHQVWRJXLOGV or civic citizenship and, indeed, the sum total of the laws and traditions to which strangers were subject. Rather than stressing reason or unreason, violence or stability, we should mine the full range of reactions towards immigration for clues as WRWKHPDUNHUVWKDW/RQGRQHUVXVHGLQWKHLUFRQVWUXFWLRQRIGLIIHUHQFH(FRQRPLFDQG occupational fears were themselves the source of powerful anti-alien stereotypes that are hard to untangle from those expressed during events such as riots. Reasonable or not, they played a central role in the creation of difference. Economic Encroachment as Difference The decades from Elizabeth’s reign to the Restoration saw both economic crisis DQG JUDGXDO LPSURYHPHQW :LGHVSUHDG LQÀDWLRQ LQ WKH ODWH VL[WHHQWK DQG HDUO\ seventeenth centuries created a high degree of hardship that lasted until prices began to fall in the 1620s and 1630s. Although poverty and social polarization persisted, outright starvation became rare, aided in part by the slow but steady implementation of the Poor Law and a rise in philanthropic activity. The development of a host of small industries led to both a degree of surplus income, even among the less well RIIDQGWRWKHJURZWKRIDGRPHVWLFPDUNHWIRUPDQXIDFWXUHGJRRGV%\WKHHQGRI the seventeenth century England was well on the way to developing a consumer culture, although it remained, by almost any standard, a nation of extremes.23 to alien encroachment; see ibid., p. 140. Laura Hunt Yungblut, on the other hand, has argued that much anti-alien sentiment was in fact divorced from well-founded economic fears: “Hostility was … shown to foreigners who in no manner constituted economic competition for Londoners, contrary to the idea that economic fears generated all of the animosity”; Yungblut, Strangers, p. 43. Growth in immigration and increasing familiarity “seems to KDYHIXHOHGWKHVROLGL¿FDWLRQRIVWHUHRW\SHVUDWKHUWKDQWKHUHYHUVH´IRUPLQJ³DGLVWLQFWDQG LGHQWL¿DEOHSRSXODU[HQRSKRELD´LELG p. 46. 23 $QQ .XVVPDXO VLWXDWHV WKH LQÀDWLRQ RI WKH ODWH VL[WHHQWK DQG HDUO\ VHYHQWHHQWK centuries within a larger trend towards increased productivity, regional differentiation DQGE\DURXQGWKHLQWHJUDWLRQRIDQDWLRQDOPDUNHWVHH$QQ.XVVPDXOA General View of the Rural Economy of England, 1538–1840&DPEULGJH -RDQ7KLUVNDOVR

“No Better Than Conduit Pipes”

57

Although such long-term changes would have been largely imperceptible to the inhabitants of early modern London, some decades were noticeably worse than RWKHUV5HVLGHQWVRIWKHPHWURSROLVFHUWDLQO\IHOWWKHHIIHFWVRIWKHLQÀDWLRQRIWKH 1590s.24 Yet the relationship between economic change and daily attitudes towards DOLHQV LV GLI¿FXOW WR JDXJH$OWKRXJK LPPLJUDQWV SOD\HG D FHQWUDO UROH LQ VRPH of the industries that were the focus of change in this period, most importantly WKHFORWKWUDGHLWUHPDLQVH[WUHPHO\GLI¿FXOWWRPDSDQWLDOLHQVHQWLPHQWGLUHFWO\ onto a larger patterns of prosperity or dearth.25 This is due both to the inconsistent preservation of anti-stranger complaints and to their general persistence through good times and bad. In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, whether earlier GHFDGHV RI FULVLV DQG LQÀDWLRQ RU ODWHU \HDUV RI HFRQRPLF JURZWK DQG GHFOLQLQJ prices, strangers remained a target of Londoners’ grievances. So what exactly can be said about the relationship between exclusion and the economy? If we cannot XVHRXWEUHDNVRIDQWLLPPLJUDQWKRVWLOLW\WRPHDVXUH[HQRSKRELDDQGLIVWUDQJHUV were the subject of complaint throughout our period, how did economic factors affect the construction of difference? Complaints concerning strangers, whether or not they had any basis in economic reality, made powerful statements about conceptions of difference. Accusations WKDW DOLHQV VXSSODQWHG (QJOLVK ZRUNHUV WHOO XV PDQ\ WKLQJV DERXW WKH SHUFHLYHG argues for the existence of a cycle of increased production and demand in the seventeenth FHQWXU\OHDGLQJWRWKHHYHQWXDOGHYHORSPHQWRIDFRQVXPHUVRFLHW\VHH7KLUVNEconomic Policy and Projects. Robert Brenner echoes this in arguing that the eventual fall in food prices, stimulated by increased agricultural production, led to economic growth and D PDUNHW IRU OX[XULHV 7KH FRQÀLFW EHWZHHQ DQ HQWUHSUHQHXULDO ODQGKROGLQJ FODVV DQG D Crown bent on maintaining economic and administrative control through the granting of monopolies provides the underlying economic narrative for the English Revolution; see Brenner, Merchants and Revolution. 3DXO6ODFNKDVDUJXHGWKDWWKHHFRQRPLFJURZWKRI the seventeenth century went hand in hand with the gradual implementation of the Poor Law, largely complete by around 1650, resulting in a reduction of “deep” poverty; see Paul 6ODFNPoverty and Policy in Tudor and Stuart England, Themes in British Social History 1HZ
Diversity and Difference in Early Modern London

58

position of such strangers, in society (be it dangerously central or suspiciously hidden), in the City itself (in neighborhoods, houses and churches) and in London’s LQVWLWXWLRQVDVLQ¿OWUDWRUVRUDSRVVLEOH¿IWKFROXPQ 3RUWUD\DOVRIVWUDQJHUVDVD hole in the country’s mercantilist armor, as shippers of coinage and raw materials out of the realm, reveal potent assumptions about immigrants’ loyalties, about the UDPL¿FDWLRQVRIWKHLUFRQWDFWVDEURDGDQGDERXWWKHH[WHQWWRZKLFKWKH\FDQHYHU be considered to truly belong in the country. In this sense, although such complaints cannot be made to mesh with a larger narrative of economic change, they do¿W with economic concerns at play in the wider culture. Early modern English people cared passionately about order and disorder, about the economic porosity of the realm and about subversion from within and without. Complaints against aliens mirror these concerns. But they also do more than mirror. In connecting economic LVVXHVWRLPPLJUDQWVDQGLPPLJUDWLRQ/RQGRQHUVGH¿QHGZKRZDVGLIIHUHQWDQG how and why they differed. $QWLDOLHQ SHWLWLRQV RIWHQ DFFXVHG VWUDQJHUV RI VXSSODQWLQJ (QJOLVK ZRUNHUV DQG LPSDLULQJ WKHLU DELOLW\ WR PDNH D OLYLQJ
26

Huntington, EL 2517, fol. 1v (undated, c. 1603–17, endorsed by Lord Chancellor Ellesmere; I am assuming that this petition is early Stuart based on this endorsement DQGLWVSUR[LPLW\WRRWKHUFRPSODLQWVIURPWKHSHULRG 7KHSHWLWLRQOLVWVPHUFKDQWV¿UVW and handicraftsmen second. For the purposes of this chapter I am inverting the order so as WRUHÀHFWWKHSURFHVVRISURGXFWLRQDQGGLVWULEXWLRQ

“No Better Than Conduit Pipes”

59

Artisans and Handicraftsmen Early Stuart petitions against alien artisans show how economic practices produced SRZHUIXORFFXSDWLRQDOO\VSHFL¿FVWHUHRW\SHV27)RUFRPSODLQDQWVVXFKZRUNHUV FRQVWLWXWHGD¿IWKFROXPQZLWKLQWKHQDWLRQ¶VLQVWLWXWLRQVRISURGXFWLRQZLWKWKH very crafts practiced by strangers, particularly in the cloth trade, creating a direct KD]DUG IRU WKH (QJOLVK 1HZ IRUPV RI FORWK PDQXIDFWXUH²WKH VRFDOOHG 1HZ 'UDSHULHV²SODFHG HVWDEOLVKHG SUDFWLFHV LQ SHULO 3HWLWLRQHUV LGHQWL¿HG WKH W\SHV of materials that strangers produced and the ways in which they produced them DVSDUWRIDGHOLEHUDWHDWWHPSWWRVXSSODQW(QJOLVKZRUNHUVDQGVHFXUHHFRQRPLF domination. Yet the threat represented by alien artisans was more extensive than encroachment in the spheres of trade and industry. The very nature of alien VRFLHW\ WKUHDWHQHG WR XQGHUPLQH (QJOLVK ZRUNHUV %HFDXVH RI WKHLU ODFN RI WLHV to English practices and institutions, aliens could easily subvert long established guild monopolies and manufacturing methods. In doing so, they threatened to undermine the established civic hierarchy, both from without by erosion and from ZLWKLQE\LQ¿OWUDWLQJ&LW\FRPSDQLHV,QH[HUWLQJLQÀXHQFHRYHU(QJOLVKZRUNHUV SDUWLFXODUO\E\WDNLQJ(QJOLVKDSSUHQWLFHV DOLHQDUWLVDQVWKUHDWHQHGWRGLVUXSWWKH WUDQVPLVVLRQRIHVWDEOLVKHGNQRZOHGJHDQGYDOXHVDFURVVJHQHUDWLRQV&RPSODLQWV thus placed aliens a priori beyond Englishness, on the social margins of both City and realm. Alien artisans had come to England under false pretenses. According to one 1615 complaint, they had arrived “in great numbers about the tenth year of the late TXHHQ´DQGZHUHLQIDFWQRWKLQJEXWERJXVDV\OXPVHHNHUVZKR³SUHWHQGHGWKDW their coming was to avoid the storms of war and persecutions which then raged in their countries.” Since the initial wave of immigration, the aliens’ countries of origin had been “set in better peace and liberty,” a fact that exposed the duplicity of their claims for refuge.28 Rather than returning home to their now peaceful ODQGVDVWKH(QJOLVK0DULDQH[LOHVKDGRQFHGRQH WKHÀRRGFRQWLQXHG³ZHGR QRW¿QGWKDWWKRVHSHRSOHKDYHDQ\GLVSRVLWLRQRUSXUSRVHWRUHWXUQWRDQ\SDUWRI the Netherlands.”29 Instead, “more and more of the same nation do daily resort 27 The petitions used are mostly anonymous or, as in the case of EL 2446, from ORRVHO\GH¿QHGJURXSVVXFKDVWKH³FRPPRQVRIWKHFLW\RI/RQGRQ´+XQWLQJWRQ(/ fol. 1r (1615). 28 Ibid., fol. 5r (1615). It is unclear which events are seen as having brought this “better peace and liberty.” The Union of Utrecht was concluded in 1579, resulting in the formation of the United Provinces, and a degree of internal stability had been attained by the late 1580s. War with Spain resumed in 1621. For a narrative of events in the Low &RXQWULHVVHH3DUNHUDutch Revolt. 29 Huntington, EL 2446, fol. 5r (1615). The extent to which the experiences of the English Marian exiles shaped English expectations of the behavior of Continental immigrants is unclear (the parallel here is my own, not that of the document). However, a 1595 letter from English weavers to the minister and elders of the French Church in

60

Diversity and Difference in Early Modern London

hither accompanied with their wives, children and servants.” The increase rather than abatement of immigration in a time of peace thus exposed the motivation of DOLHQDUWLVDQVPDNLQJ³LWDSSDUHQWWKDWWKH\FDPHQRWIRUUHOLJLRQRQO\EXWIRU« >WKHLURZQ@JDLQ´,QVKRUWWKHVHZHUHHFRQRPLFPLJUDQWVUDWKHUWKDQGHVHUYLQJ refugees.30 $UWLVDQV IURP WKH &RQWLQHQW ÀRXULVKHG WR WKH GLUHFW GHWULPHQW RI (QJOLVK ZRUNHUV7KHLULOOGHVHUYHGSURVSHULW\WKHSHWLWLRQDOOHJHGZDVSDUWLDOO\WKHUHVXOW of a naïve failure to enforce the law on the part of the English, who in practice treated aliens with a generosity that the French or Dutch did not extend on their own turf. The English immigrant to foreign lands “is not there allowed so much as one handicraftsman of his own nation to exercise any craft for his private use, PXFKOHVVDUHDQ\RIRXUQDWLRQXVLQJDQ\PDQXDOWUDGHSHUPLWWHGWRNHHSVKRSRU use any handy trade at all.”31 Yet while other countries enforced such restrictions DJDLQVWWKHLURZQDOLHQVVWUDQJHUVIURPWKH&RQWLQHQWRSHQO\ÀRXWHG(QJODQG¶V own laws. Immigrants “within this city and liberties thereof,” having arrived “in great numbers,” exercised “all manner of handicrafts and occupations,” despite the fact that such practices were “contrary to the laws of this land, and the general freedom of this city.” The consequences of such open abuse of hospitality were QXPHURXVDQGGLUHIRUZRUNHUPHWURSROLVDQGPRQDUFKDOLNHOHDGLQJWR³WKHJUHDW impoverishing of many who are thereby made unable to pay” local taxes or “bear RI¿FHVDQGHPSOR\PHQWVIRUWKHVHUYLFHRIWKHNLQJDQGKLVFLW\´(QJODQGWKXV faced a duplicitous threat from abroad, one that had opportunistically transformed itself into a grave domestic danger.32 Technologies and Methods 3HWLWLRQV LGHQWL¿HG WKH VLWH RI DOLHQ VXEYHUVLRQ ZLWK WKH YHU\ VNLOOV WKDW WKH Crown had encouraged immigrants to foster in England. Rather than enhancing the economy of the land, as the national government had intended, alien artisans brought ruin. When one complainant alleged in 1635 that the “wools of this London (discussed in detail below) did point out the laws that had been enacted in Geneva DJDLQVWVWUDQJHUVLPSO\LQJWKDWWKH\ZHUHFKHHUIXOO\REH\HGE\WKH(QJOLVK³:H¿QGWKDW LQWKHZHOOJRYHUQHGFLW\RI*HQHYDZKHUHWKHSHUVHFXWHG(QJOLVKPHQÀHGKLWKHUDQGWKDW the Governor and the rest of the States of the City seeing the multitude of strangers daily to HQFUHDVHPDGHDGHFUHHWKDWQRVWUDQJHUVKRXOGEX\DQ\YLFWXDOVLQWKHPDUNHWEHIRUHWKH FORFNKDGVWURRNHQWHQ´*/06IROY 30 +XQWLQJWRQ (/  IRO U   )RU HDUOLHU FRQFHUQV DERXW WKH ODFN RI religiosity of French and Dutch refugees see CSP Dom. Eliz I., vol. 4 (1595–1597), p. 305. 6HH&KDSWHUDERYHSS±IRUEDFNJURXQGRQSDWWHUQVRILPPLJUDWLRQWR/RQGRQ DVZHOODVWKHGHJUHHRIEDFNPLJUDWLRQ)RUWKHLQÀXHQFHRIHYHQWVRQWKH&RQWLQHQWVHH Pettegree, Foreign Protestant Communities, pp. 216–17. 31 Huntington, EL 2446, fol. 5r (1615). 32 Ibid.

“No Better Than Conduit Pipes”

61

NLQJGRPDUHLQDJUHDWSDUWHPSOR\HGLQWKHQHZGUDSHU\PDGHE\VWUDQJHUV´KH WRRNH[FHSWLRQWRERWKWKHQHZFORWKDQGLWVIRUHLJQSURGXFHUV33 Cheaper, alienmade textiles, in greater demand than traditional material, undercut the English woolen trade.346XFKFRPSODLQWVDOVRDFFXVHGDOLHQDUWL¿FHUVRILPSRUWLQJQRYHO and dangerous technologies. New looms and engines threatened to force English ZRUNHUVLQWRXQHPSOR\PHQWWDNLQJE\³GHFHLWIXOZRUNDQGE\HYLOFRQVHTXHQFH … the livelihood of many thousand families of his Majesty’s subjects, who have served for their trades according to the customs and laws in that behalf.” And alien DUWL¿FHUVUHVSRQVLEOHIRULPSRUWLQJVXFKSUDFWLFHVGLGVRLQWKHIXOONQRZOHGJHWKDW WKH\ZHUHIRUELGGHQDWKRPH6XFK³HQJLQHVZHUH¿UVWLQYHQWHGLQ+ROODQGEXW ZHUHLQVKRUWWLPHSURKLELWHGE\WKH6WDWHV´EHFDXVHWKH\³WRRNDZD\WKHOLYHOLKRRG of many of the poor people.” Yet they “are now put in use here by aliens to that purpose.” In turning a blind eye to these practices, the English authorities encouraged LPPLJUDQWVLQWKHLUGLUHFWDQGGHOLEHUDWHGLVSODFHPHQWRI(QJOLVKZRUNHUV35 Putting aside the question of whether new looms or manufacturing methods posed a genuine threat, we can use these complaints to tell us much about English perceptions of alien society and the manner in which petitioners cast immigrant ZRUNHUV DV GLIIHUHQW $OLHQ DUWLVDQV¶ PHWKRGV FRQVWLWXWHG IRU FRPSODLQDQWV D wilful subversion of native subjects. This is true of the introduction of new looms, deliberately brought over to harm the English, but it is also clear in criticisms of the social and occupational structure of immigrant society. Accusations that economic displacement was intentional stem from a widespread perception that immigrants in England lived as “a common weal among themselves.” With “people of all WUDGHV DUW>V@ DQG SURIHVVLRQV QRW PLQJOLQJ ZLWK RXU QDWLRQ EXW VWLOO UHPDLQLQJ VWUDQJHUV´ D VHSDUDWH VRFLHW\ ZDV DEOH WR ÀRXULVK EH\RQG WKH ODZ LWV PHPEHUV HQMR\LQJEHQH¿WVDQGRSSRUWXQLWLHVFORVHGWRWKHQDWXUDOVXEMHFWVRIWKHUHDOP36 7KH PDQQHU LQ ZKLFK VWUDQJHUV OLYHG DQG ZRUNHG JDYH WKHP D FRPSHWLWLYH HGJHDOORZLQJWKHPWRVXSSODQW(QJOLVKZRUNHUVDQGWRPRQRSROL]HQHZPHWKRGV RISURGXFWLRQ$WWKHURRWRIWKHSUREOHPZDVWKHÀXLGLW\ÀH[LELOLW\DQGDXWRQRP\ JUDQWHGWRVWUDQJHUVSHUPLWWLQJWKHPWRÀDXQWHVWDEOLVKHGFXVWRPVDQGSUDFWLFHV in a way simply not open to the English: “native born subjects dare not assume the

33

GL, MS 4647, fol. 162r (undated, c. 1635; where dates are not provided for petitions UHFRUGHGLQWKH:HDYHUV¶&RPSDQ\RUGLQDQFHDQGUHFRUGERRN,KDYHHVWLPDWHGWKHPEDVHG on their relationship to other entries). 34 See Chapter 1, pp. 35–9; Yungblut, Strangers, pp. 106–7. Increased alien production of woolens also seems to have been viewed as a problem. In 1607 it was proposed (anonymously) that strangers pay the same rate of customs on woolen materials as they did on cloth; see CSP Dom., James I, vol. 11 (1623–25), p. 538. 35 GL, MS 4647, fol. 338r (undated, c. 1638–41). These looms were probably invented in Danzig, and from there imported to the Netherlands; see Chapter 1 above, p. 36; Dunn, “London Weavers’ Riot,” p. 14. 36 Huntington, EL 2446, fol. 6r (1615).

Diversity and Difference in Early Modern London

62

OLNHOLEHUW\DVWKHDOLHQVGR´37:KLOH(QJOLVKZRUNHUVKDGWRREH\WKHODZDOLHQV EHQH¿WHGIURPLWVOD[HQIRUFHPHQW,QSDUWWKLVZDVEHFDXVHRI(QJOLVKQHJOLJHQFH and inattention. Strangers “live lawless because for some years the laws concerning DOLHQVKDYHQRWEHHQSXWLQH[HFXWLRQ´
37

GL, MS 4647, fol. 338r (undated, c. 1638–41). Ibid. This petition was addressed to the Crown by “your Majesty’s native born VXEMHFWVEHLQJWUDGHVPHQDQGDUWL¿FHUVZLWKLQWKLVNLQJGRPRI(QJODQG´ 39 Ibid., fol. 157v. 40 CLRO, Remembrancia, vol. 1, fol. 26r. 41 This is also discussed in detail by Joseph Ward in Metropolitan Communities, FK6HHDOVR:DUG³)LFWLWLRXVVKRHPDNHUV´:DUG³>,@PSOR\PHQWIRUDOOKDQGHV´SS± For more on the Weavers’ Company, see Consitt, London Weavers’ Company; Alfred Plummer, The London Weavers’ Company, 1600–1970 (London and Boston, MA, 1972). 38

“No Better Than Conduit Pipes”

63

and the articulations of difference that resulted from those accusations.42 Rather WKDQ DSSUHFLDWLQJ WKH DUULYDO RI PXFKQHHGHG VNLOOV IURP DEURDG FRPSODLQDQWV DFFXVHG IRUHLJQ PDVWHUV ZKR WRRN RQ (QJOLVK DSSUHQWLFHV RI WKUHDWHQLQJ WKH transmission of occupational legitimacy from one generation to the next. Such DFWVZHUHPHUHO\DVLQJOHVWDJHLQDZLGHUSORWWRLQ¿OWUDWHWKHJXLOGH[SRVLQJWKH FRPSDQ\KLHUDUFK\²DQGWKXVSRWHQWLDOO\WKH&LW\¶VJRYHUQPHQW²WRFRUUXSWLQJ LQÀXHQFHVIURPZLWKRXW7KHFDVHRIWKHZHDYHUVUDLVHVWKHIHDURIDOLHQLQÀXHQFH across generations. While the guild’s hierarchy tended to favor assimilation, albeit as a means of control, complaints from the commonality indicate a profound fear that strangers would destroy the craft by eroding its integrity. Petitioning weavers VDZDOLHQDUWL¿FHUVQRWRQO\DVVHSDUDWHIURP(QJOLVKODZVDQGFXVWRPVH[HUFLVLQJ JUHDWHU OLEHUW\ EXW ERXQG XS LQ WKHLU GHVWUXFWLRQ IURP ZLWKLQ D ZHDNHQLQJ DQG FRQWDPLQDWLQJLQÀXHQFH The weavers’ guild was just one of many civic institutions struggling to adjust WRWKHH[SDQVLRQRIWKHPHWURSROLV7KLVH[SDQVLRQHQWDLOHGDVLJQL¿FDQWLQFUHDVH LQSRSXODWLRQODUJHO\GXHWRWKHLQÀX[RISHRSOHIURPHOVHZKHUHLQ(QJODQGDQG the resulting growth of the capital beyond the jurisdiction of the City of London.43 Joseph Ward has argued that the Company of Weavers was successful in the face of this growth, effectively absorbing immigrants despite evident friction: “the company’s assimilation of immigrants, whether intentional or not, enabled it to continue offering its members a sense of community that could adjust to metropolitan expansion.”44 The guild was also largely responsive to calls for reform from its members, and even aliens were able to participate in the give and WDNH RI FRPSDQ\ SROLWLFV45 From the perspective of an investigation of relative LQVWLWXWLRQDO ÀH[LELOLW\ WKHQ WKH &RPSDQ\ RI :HDYHUV SURYLGHV DQ H[DPSOH RI friction tempered by ultimate adaptation, a corporate body under stress that was, in the end, able to successfully respond to the challenges posed by unprecedented metropolitan growth. Yet this picture effaces what those tensions surrounding the LQÀXHQFHRIDOLHQVLQWKHJXLOGWHOOXVDERXWGLIIHUHQFH$OWKRXJKIURPDSXUHO\ LQVWLWXWLRQDO SRLQW RI YLHZ ³WKH UHODWLRQVKLS RI >DOLHQ@ VWUDQJHUV DQG >(QJOLVK@ foreigners to livery companies was, for the most part, similar,” complaints and petitions by guild members paint a very different picture.46 7KHQXPEHURIIRUHLJQERUQZRUNHUVDGPLWWHGWRWKH&RPSDQ\RI:HDYHUVZDV certainly impressive. Yet there was a clear divide between the guild’s hierarchy and

42 As noted in Chapter 1 above, weaving was a trade in which aliens played an LQÀXHQWLDO UROH 7KH PDMRULW\ RI VWUDQJHUV OLYLQJ LQ :KLWHFKDSHO DQG 6SLWDO¿HOGV ZHUH described as weavers in the 1635 survey; see CSP Dom., Charles I, vol. 8 (1635), p. 283. 43 See Chapter 1 above, pp. 20–24. 44 Ward, Metropolitan Communities, p. 126. 45 Ibid., ch. 6, p. 142. 46 Ibid., p. 150 n. 5.

64

Diversity and Difference in Early Modern London

LWVPHPEHUVKLSRYHUWKHLVVXHRIDOLHQLQÀXHQFH47 While the company’s government mounted a defense of the admission of strangers that was indeed assimilationist LQQDWXUHWKH\HRPHQDQGFRPPRQDOLW\EURXJKWDFFXVDWLRQVRIDOLHQLQ¿OWUDWLRQ WKDWUDLVHGFRQFHUQVERWKDERXWWKHSUHVHQFHRILPPLJUDQWVDQGWKHLQÀXHQFHRI ZRUNHUVERUQLQ(QJODQGRIDOLHQSDUHQWDJH:KHUHFRQVHQVXVEHWZHHQWKHWZR groups existed it was in agreement that strangers constituted a threat; as we will see, the guild government articulated absorption as a means of control and thus, OLNHWKHFRPPRQDOLW\DOVRYLHZHGVWUDQJHUVDVDSUREOHP7KHSRVLWLRQRIERWK factions implied a range of anti-alien stereotypes. Within the Weavers’ Company, as elsewhere, daily occupational practice structured the creation of difference. Initial complaints viewed aliens as free of traditional constraints, able to bypass the entire system of guilds and apprenticeships and therefore to undermine the civic occupational hierarchy. A number of freemen and weavers pointed out the EHQH¿WVRSHQWRVWUDQJHUVZKRZHUHQHLWKHUIUHHRIWKH&LW\QRUPHPEHUVRIDQ\ guild, in a letter to the minister and elders of the French Church in June 1595.48 The letter sought to reveal the “griefs and the injuries which daily we endure at the hands of many of your nation and country.”49 Its writers made it clear that they were not opposed to an alien presence as such, stating that it was not their intention “to drive away or expel any distressed strangers out of our land, but to have them live here, that we might be able to live with them, and that they should live under government, and to be obedient to good orders.”507KH\PHUHO\DVNHGWKHHOGHUV of the church to call before them those members of the congregation guilty of transgressing law and custom, and to “exhort them to be obedient to good orders, ZKLFKDUHPDGHIRUDJHQHUDOEHQH¿WWRDOOPHQWKDWXVHWKLVWUDGH´51 However, the letter also stressed that most alien artisans fell into the category RIRIIHQGHUV6WUDQJHUVDUH³DPRVWREVWLQDWHDQGSHUYHUVHNLQGRISHRSOH´ZKR ³FDUHQRWKRZWKH\RIIHQGWKHODZVRLWPD\EULQJWKHPSUR¿W´52 In tolerating their presence, English weavers “nourish serpents in our bosoms, who sting us to the 47 Ward notes that the Company of Weavers was “a leader” among companies in allowing strangers to join, “admitting between eight and ten aliens in a typical year during the early decades of the seventeenth century into a guild that was, by the 1650s, registering some 320 apprentices every year”; ibid., p. 126. 48 GL, MS 4647, fols. 65r–69v (June 1595). For further discussion of this letter, see Goose, “Xenophobia,” p. 124; Luu, ImmigrantsSS±:DUG³)LFWLWLRXVVKRHPDNHUV´ pp. 83–5; Ward, Metropolitan Communities, pp. 126–7. 49 GL, MS 4647, fol. 65r. 50 Ibid., fol. 69r. 51 Ibid., fol. 68r. 52 Ibid., fol. 65v. The petitioners did seem to exempt some aliens from these FULWLFLVPVZULWLQJLQWKHPDUJLQRIWKLVSDJH³ZHPHDQWKRVHWKDWDUHQR>W@GHQL]HQV´7KHVH presumably constituted a small minority of London’s alien weavers: in the last 24 years of Elizabeth’s reign only 293 patents of denization were granted; See Scouloudi, Returns, p. 5, and Chapter 1 above, pp. 49–50.

“No Better Than Conduit Pipes”

65

very heart.”53 At root, the immigrant community was fundamentally acquisitive in QDWXUHLWVPHPEHUVODFNLQJFRQVLGHUDWLRQIRUWKHZHOOEHLQJRI(QJOLVKZRUNHUV Alien weavers: E\DOOWKHEDGFRXUVHVWKH\FDQGHYLVH«RQO\VHHNWKHLURZQSULYDWHOXFUHZLWKRXW any Christian regard of the native born of our country and without respect of the liberties and privileges granted to the freemen of this honorable city.

Not all of the blame lay with the immigrants; the English authorities were at least partly responsible for allowing their abuses, turning a blind eye to the aliens’ many infringements of the law. Building upon this laxity, strangers voraciously sought IXUWKHUPHDQVRIHQULFKPHQW7KHVHLQFOXGHGERWKWKHNHHSLQJRIPRUHORRPVWKDQ any free man and the practice of further evading the City’s control by resorting EH\RQGWKHZDOOV³¿YHRUVL[PLOHVIURPWKHFLW\RXWRIRXUOLEHUWLHV´ZKHUHWKH\ ZHUHWKHQDEOHWR³PDOLFLRXVO\NHHSDQGGRZKDWWKH\OLVW´54 $OLHQ ZHDYHUV OLNH RWKHU LPPLJUDQW DUWLVDQV PDLQWDLQHG D FRPSHWLWLYH edge through their wilful circumvention of the law. Life beyond the reach of the guilds that regulated the practices of the English afforded greater freedom and therefore greater productivity. For anti-stranger petitioners, such freedom to JDLQWKHHFRQRPLFXSSHUKDQGQHJDWHGDQ\SRWHQWLDOEHQH¿WWKDWQHZPHWKRGVRI production brought to the realm. Moreover, aliens wilfully blurred the distinctions between occupations and trades in a way that threatened the integrity of those SURIHVVLRQV,PPLJUDQWDI¿QLWLHVIRUHDFKRWKHUEDVHGRQFRPPRQRULJLQDWDOO times trumped occupational ties with the English. By evading the guild system, strangers spread the mysteries of production methods to compatriots of other trades. Rather than maintaining loyalty to their craft, alien weavers “teach their FRXQWU\PHQZKLFKQRZFRPHRYHUWKHDUWRIVLONZHDYLQJWKRXJKEHIRUHWKH\ were a tailor, a cobbler, or a joiner.” While the English were bound by the ties that came with guild membership, strangers set up a parallel system of training open to landsmen of all trades, and devoid of the rigors of full apprenticeship. As a result, ³VXFKIHOORZVWKDWQHYHUVHUYHG>D@GD\IRUWKHWUDGHKDYHDVJUHDWFRPPRGLW\E\ our occupation, as our selves that served seven, eight, nine or ten years for it.” (QJOLVKZRUNHUVFRXOGQRWSRVVLEO\FRPSHWHYLFWLPVRIQRWKLQJVKRUWRIWKH³SODLQ theft” of their own craft.55 ,PPLJUDQW ZHDYHUV GLVUXSWHG VRFLHW\¶V QDWXUDO RUGHU LQ WKH QDPH RI SUR¿W subverting established norms of gender and domestic hierarchy. As members of 53

GL, MS 4647, fol. 67v. Ibid., fols. 65r–65v. The areas beyond the bars were a haven for migrants from all quarters, and the issue of the infringement of guild monopolies due to unregulated extramural trade and industry was a source of ongoing friction. See Chapter 1 above. The relationship between the City, its liberties and the suburbs is discussed in depth throughout Ward, Metropolitan Communities. 55 GL, MS 4647, fol. 66r. 54

Diversity and Difference in Early Modern London

66

the weavers’ guild wrote to the French Church in 1595, strangers set “women DQG PDLGV DW ZRUN´ 7KHVH ³ZKHQ WKH\ EHFRPH SHUIHFW LQ WKH RFFXSDWLRQ GR marry with men of contrary trade, and so bring that which should be our living, to be the maintenance of those that never deserved for it.”56 Such practices were unnatural both because they implied that women could become the equivalent of masters and because they carried with them the threat of occupational hybridity (if not a literal mixing of nations).57 By training in the art of weaving and passing WKHLU VNLOOV WR PHQ RI RWKHU WUDGHV VWUDQJHUV VRXJKW WR EUHHG XS D PXOWLWXGH RI LOOLFLW ZHDYHUV ZKR ³OLNHZLVH LQFUHDVH LQ LQ¿QLWH QXPEHU´ IXUWKHU XQGHUPLQLQJ legitimate English artisans.58 8OWLPDWHO\DOLHQKDQGLFUDIWVPHQOLNHWKHLUPHUFKDQWEUHWKUHQDLPHGWRSODFH their English hosts in bondage. As the weavers complained, in growing “as cunning LQDQ\ZRUNDVRXUVHOYHV´VWUDQJHUV³PDGHVODYHVDQGGUXGJHV´RIWKHQDWLYHV 7KURXJKWKHLUQHIDULRXVSUDFWLFHVWKH\IRUFHGIUHHPHQWR³WRLODOOWKHZHHNIRU a morsel of bread” while in turn eating up their trade. Unfree strangers were “so PXFK XQGHUIRRW´ LQ WKH ZHDYLQJ WUDGH WKDW ³WKH SRRU IUHHPHQ FDQ JHW QR ZRUN DWDOORUYHU\OLWWOH´6XFKZRUNWKDWDQ(QJOLVKZHDYHUPLJKW¿QGZRXOGQRWEH enough to feed his family. As a result, “many a poor English man is quite undone with his wife and poor children, and brought to such misery as is lamentable to be UHKHDUVHG´7KXVDOLHQZHDYHUVZKRVHKRXVHKROGVLQIULQJHPHQWVDQGYHU\ZRUN SUDFWLFHVHYLQFHGD GHOLEHUDWHPDOHYROHQFHUHGXFHG WKH (QJOLVK WR WKH EULQN RI VWDUYDWLRQ$OLHQV³OLNHWKHHQYLRXVPDQ«FDUHQRWWRSLFNRXWRQHRIWKHLURZQ eyes, that their neighbor might lose both his.”59 Concerns relating to the infringement of the guild’s monopoly targeted English ³IRUHLJQHUV´DQGIRUHLJQERUQVWUDQJHUVDOLNH,QWKLVVHQVHDOOLOOHJLWLPDWHPDVWHUV were of equal threat, regardless of national origin, demonstrating the depths of concern over the binding of apprentices to those who were neither members of the company nor free of the City. One early Stuart complaint saw the possibility of speedy and lax service under unlawful masters as “the only cause, that so many both English and aliens (out of foreign parts) repair unto this city, to the great pestering of the same.”60 The mere fact of service under anyone who was not a legitimate member of the guild hierarchy ensured a descent into disorder. ³)RUHLJQHUV DQG VWUDQJHUV´ ZKR WRRN DSSUHQWLFHV ³NQRZLQJ WKH\ KDYH QRW lawful right to detain them,” allowed their charges “so much liberty that they fall WR JDPLQJ GUXQNHQQHVV DQG RWKHU HYLO FRXUVHV´ ,QIULQJHPHQW RI WKH JXLOG OHG 56

Ibid., fol. 66v. Nothing further is stated in this letter about the possibility (and dangers) of marriage between aliens and English, and the ethnicity of the non-weaving husbands referred to is unclear. However, over subsequent decades explicit concerns arose about the English-born of alien descent; see Chapter 3 below. 58 GL, MS 4647, fol. 66v. 59 Ibid. 60 Ibid., fols. 99v–100r (c. 1627–30). 57

“No Better Than Conduit Pipes”

67

to unruliness and a variety of social ills, the “foreign masters” unable to govern their subordinates, “to the evil example of the apprentices of freemen.”61 Yet petitions of this nature also made many clear distinctions between English foreigners and foreign-born aliens. The fees accepted for admission of foreigners LQWRWKHJXLOGGLIIHUHGEDVHGRQRULJLQ$FFRUGLQJWRWKHFRPSDQ\¶VERRNRIRUGHUV “there was usually paid £5 for admitting a foreign stranger, and £3 for admitting a foreign Englishman.”62 Writing in the 1630s, complainants also accused the company government of charging too much for the admission of English foreigners, of treating them, in effect, in the same manner as strangers. They noted that the EDLOLIIVDQGZDUGHQVKDGQRZDUUDQW³WRWDNHDQ\PRUHPRQH\IRUWKHHQWUDQFHRU admittance of any native born subject into their guild then the statute doth appoint or allow, which is but three shillings four pence as aforesaid.”63 Yet despite this rule, the admission of the English on the same basis as strangers was a problem. Objections by weavers to growing encroachment by the unfree betray acute anxiety about the power of the non-English. Complaints concerning infringement of the guild’s monopoly call attention again and again to the extent to which alien LQÀXHQFHSHUPHDWHGWKHJRYHUQPHQWRIWKHJXLOGXQGHUPLQLQJ(QJOLVKVXEMHFWV This posed a far greater threat than the actions of native foreigners. In this vein, the “poor young men of the guild or fellowship of weavers” petitioned the lord mayor, complaining not just that aliens illicitly practiced their art, but that the bailiffs, wardens and assistants of the company were turning English apprentices over to strangers. They called attention to infringements of a 1585 decree by the bailiffs and wardens themselves that “no stranger or Englishman foreigners should be admitted foreign (brothers) into the said company except they had served seven years as apprentice thereunto.”64 Yet the guild hierarchy who had elaborated this rule violated it by turning over apprentices to serve with aliens. This was due, at least in part, to the fact that the Englishness of the bailiffs, wardens and assistants was itself in doubt. The young men, who had been given “free leave and license” to “search and enquire after the daily abuses and misdemeanors” within the guild, had discovered 61

Ibid., fol. 100r (c. 1627–30). Ibid., fol. 200v (c. 1636). As Joseph Ward notes, “the Weavers’ Company created a category of ‘foreign brethren’ to allow immigrants to develop a relationship with the FRPSDQ\DQGLWZDVVXUHO\KRSHGVXEPLWWRWKHUXOHVRIWKHWUDGH´:DUG³>,@PSOR\PHQW for all handes,” p. 81. 63 GL, MS 4647, fol. 212r (c. 1635–38); my emphasis. 64 Ibid., fol. 71v (c.± :DUGQRWHVWKHSUHVHQFHRI³VLJQL¿FDQWGLYLVLRQV between the company’s yeomanry and its governors,” although he emphasizes the resulting reform; see Ward, Metropolitan Communities, p. 126. The fact that many of the weavers’ FRPSODLQWVDJDLQVWDOLHQLQÀXHQFHFDPHIURPWKHJXLOG¶V³\RXQJPHQ´WKDWLV\HRPHQ  should probably be seen within this context. For the position of yeomen in City companies, see Chapter 1 above, pp. 40–41; Rappaport, Worlds within Worlds, pp. 219–24; Unwin, Gilds and Companies, pp. 224–31. 62

Diversity and Difference in Early Modern London

68

WKDWDOLHQLQÀXHQFHKDGLQ¿OWUDWHGWKHKLHUDUFK\RIWKHFRPSDQ\LWVHOI$OWKRXJK infringement from without by the non-free was a serious problem, “the chiefest abuse is through the bailiffs, wardens and assistants now of late being.” These RI¿FLDOV QRW RQO\ UHIXVHG WR HQIRUFH WKHLU RZQ H[LVWLQJ RUGHUV DQG GHFUHHV EXW “do also daily to themselves or some of them, bind apprentices, and suffer others WRGRWKHOLNH´7KH\WKHQ³WXUQRYHUWKHVDLGDSSUHQWLFHVWRVHUYHZLWKDOLHQVDQG strangers for most part of their years.” Following service with these illegitimate masters, such apprentices are then “made free of the said guild, to the utter impoverishing of many hundred Englishmen.” The net result was the inclusion as full members in the guild of poorly trained weavers who had been exposed to XQGXHDOLHQLQÀXHQFH65 Strangers corrupted the guild hierarchy, and by extension the art of weaving itself. Yet this corruption came not just from those born overseas, but from weavers born in England, cast as de facto aliens by virtue of their parental descent. In 1627 the “commonalty of the Company of Weavers” complained to the lord mayor that the guild’s government was thwarting the efforts of the “sixteen young freemen” DSSRLQWHGWRURRWRXWDEXVHV7KLVZDVEHFDXVHRIWKHLQÀXHQFHRIWKHFKLOGUHQRI aliens, who had insinuated themselves into positions of power: “the sons of aliens or strangers are become bailiff, warden and assistant of our company.” These (QJOLVKERUQZHDYHUVRIDOLHQOR\DOW\³JRDERXWWR«PDNHYRLGWKDWZKLFKWKH IRUPHUEDLOLIIVZDUGHQVDQGDVVLVWDQWVKDYHDOORZHGDQGFRQ¿UPHGFRQFHUQLQJWKH KRQHVWSURFHHGLQJVRIWKHVDLGVL[WHHQPHQ´$QDOLHQ¿IWKFROXPQZDVWKZDUWLQJ attempts to repair the damage done by infringement of the company’s rights.66 In February 1632 the bailiffs, wardens and assistants of the guild petitioned the lord mayor in their own defense, responding to the charges of the yeomanry. Their DUJXPHQWOLNHWKDWRIWKHLUDFFXVHUVUHVWHGRQWKHQHHGWRFXUEDOLHQLQÀXHQFH in this case by assimilating strangers under the control of the guild. The City was SODJXHGE\QRQ(QJOLVKLPPLJUDQWVZKR³GRWDNHKRXVHVDQGNHHSMRXUQH\PHQ DQG VHUYDQWV XVH ZHDYLQJ DQG OLYH ZLWKRXW RUGHU FKHFN RU FRQWUROPHQW´67 To FRPEDW WKLV WKH JXLOG KLHUDUFK\ VRXJKW ³WR DGPLW VWUDQJHUV « IRU WKH EHQH¿W ZKLFKWKH\PDNHWKHUHRI´SODFLQJWKHPXQGHUWKHDXWKRULW\RIWKHFRPSDQ\,Q this manner they may “reduce the strangers into obedience and conformity of life,” having them “live under government in such manner as the free men and members of their own company do.” The petitioners made no reference to accusations that the guild hierarchy was dominated by those of non-English descent. Instead they agreed with the yeomen about the damaging nature of alien interests, together with the need to protect the English. Assimilation was the only way to restore order. Unless their policy of controlling strangers by incorporating them into the guild was adopted, the weavers could “expect no other than downfall, ruin and

65 66 67

GL, MS 4647, fol. 72r (c. 1595–1626). Ibid., fol. 94r (1627). Ibid., fol. 115v (1632).

“No Better Than Conduit Pipes”

69

overthrow of the company’s natives born, their wives and children and the spoil and utter destruction of their trade, and that in a very short time.”68 The yeomen responded to the guild hierarchy’s defense by framing the issue LQVWDUNWHUPVPDNLQJLWFOHDUWKDWWKHYHU\(QJOLVKQHVVRIWKHFRPSDQ\ZDVDW VWDNH ,Q WKHLU UHWRUW WKH\ LGHQWL¿HG WKHPVHOYHV DV WKH ³ZHDYHUV (QJOLVKERUQ and freemen of London,” their adversaries simply as “the weaver strangers and aliens.” Summing up their accusations with an account of the full damage done by the practice of signing English apprentices over to strangers, they reiterated their FODLP WKDW QRQ(QJOLVK LQÀXHQFH ERWK XQGHUPLQHG DQG SHUYDGHG WKH FRPSDQ\ In being “trained up and taught by strangers weavers to weave here,” the aliens established an alternate weaving hierarchy of “weavers, journeymen, masters and KRXVHKROGHUV´ZRUNLQJ³DVEROGO\DVRXU(QJOLVKIUHHPHQZKRKDYHGXO\VHUYHG for their trade can or may do.”69 The yeomen weavers were in agreement with the hierarchy over the problems caused by strangers who wove outside of the guild’s jurisdiction. For the English-born weavers, strangers who “do live out of all order, rule, government and obedience of the said company” exerted a corrupting LQÀXHQFHVHWWLQJDEDGH[DPSOHIRU(QJOLVK\RXWKWUDLQLQJLQWKHLUDUW,QREVHUYLQJ that which was “done amiss and unlawfully by the strangers new comers … of VKRUWDERGHLQWKLVFLW\´DSSUHQWLFHVERXQGWRIUHHPDVWHUV³WDNHOLEHUW\WROLYH in all manner of discord and undutifulness to the government of the company.” In this way, strangers who were beyond guild control were nevertheless able to H[HUFLVHDSHUQLFLRXVLQÀXHQFHZLWKLQWKHFRPSDQ\70 Yet the root cause of these problems clearly lay within the guild itself, among “master strangers admitted into WKHLUFRPSDQ\>ZKR@GRHQWHUWDLQWKHVWUDQJHUVWKDWFRPHRYHUDQGKHUHVHWWKHP RQZRUN´71 :LWKWKHHQWLUHJXLOGQRZXQGHUDOLHQLQÀXHQFHLWVQRQ(QJOLVKPHPEHUV² VRPHRIZKRPZHUHRI(QJOLVKELUWK\HWZKRVHXOWLPDWHOR\DOWLHVOD\DEURDG² were free to engage in the acquisitive practices common to all strangers, from the production of shoddy goods in disordered households to the corruption of youth. Their power consolidated, they could throw off any semblance of loyalty WRDUWRUWUDGHDQGRSHQO\SXUVXHSUR¿WDWWKHH[SHQVHRIWKH(QJOLVK$-DQXDU\ 1636 petition by the “lace and ribbon weavers and English broad weavers of London and the suburbs” to the attorney general pointed to the logical outcome RI WKHVH DFWLRQV WKH EUHDNGRZQ RI DUWLVDQDO identity.72 Because strangers made no occupational distinctions, “said aliens licensed by the bailiffs” were free to ³EHFRPHPHUFKDQWVDQG«IDFWRUVYHQGLQJDQGVHOOLQJPXFKZRYHQVLONZDUHV imported from beyond the seas,” bringing in foreign goods rather than practicing WKHLU RFFXSDWLRQ DV ZHDYHUV ,Q WKLV VHQVH DOLHQ LQ¿OWUDWLRQ RI WKH &RPSDQ\ RI 68 69 70 71 72

Ibid., fol. 116r (1632). Ibid., fols. 117r–v (c. 1632). Ibid., fols. 118r–v (c. 1632). Ibid., fol. 117v (c. 1632). Ibid., fol. 171r (1636).

Diversity and Difference in Early Modern London

70

Weavers had led to the negation of the very art that the guild was supposed to protect. Immigrant artisans became merchant strangers, reducing weaving to mere commerce.73 Merchant Strangers While artisans from overseas sought to undermine the City’s institutions of SURGXFWLRQ VR PHUFKDQW VWUDQJHUV ZRUNHG WR GHOLEHUDWHO\ GUDLQ (QJODQG RI LWV ZHDOWK$QG VHOOHUV OLNH PDNHUV SRVHG D WKUHDW WR WKH YHU\ UXOHV WKDW RUGHUHG VRFLHW\IRUHVWDOOLQJWKHPDUNHWJLYLQJSRZHUWRGHSHQGHQWVDQGRSHUDWLQJIURP disordered households with multiple heads. Petitions ostensibly objecting to the ZD\VLQZKLFKDOLHQPHUFKDQWVYLRODWHGWKH&LW\¶VUXOHVFRQFHUQLQJUHWDLOLQJPDNH it clear that economic abuses enacted by strangers were merely symptomatic of a deeper desire to subvert the English. The means by which aliens undermined the rules of the realm demonstrated, for the authors of these complaints, that the LPSRYHULVKPHQWRIWKHNLQJ¶VVXEMHFWVZDVQRPHUHFRQVHTXHQFHRIFRPSHWLWLRQ it was, rather, the prime goal of strangers, their motive for economic activity in the ¿UVWSODFH$OLHQVFRQVWLWXWHGDJUDYHFKLQNLQWKHQDWLRQ¶VPHUFDQWLOLVWDUPRU Residence, Trading and Subversion Law and custom required non-English merchants to abide by a number of rules relating to both residence and retailing, “all of which,” according to one early Stuart petition, “are offended by these strangers.”74 These rules dictated not just trading practices, but where merchant strangers were to live. As such, they both DUWLFXODWHGDQGHQIRUFHGWKHVWDWXVRIDOLHQVDVJXHVWVSUHVHQWE\WKHJUDFH²DQG IRU WKH EHQH¿W²RI WKHLU SDWURQV$OLHQV WKH VDPH FRPSODLQW VWDWHG ³RXJKW QRW WR WDNH DQ\ KRXVHV RU ORGJLQJ ZLWKLQ WKH FLW\ EXW WR DELGH DW WKH WDEOHV RI IUHH hosts, and to dwell in no other place but with the said hosts to be assigned.”75 Foreign merchants, living in the households of Londoners, were to obey strict rules concerning trade. Direct retailing by merchant strangers was forbidden by 73

Ibid., fol. 172v (1636). As with other complaints, this petition targets immigrants’ children, objecting that the company allowed “the sons of aliens” to practice the art of weaving within London and its suburbs; see ibid., fol. 171v. 74 Huntington, EL 2517, fol. 1v (undated, c. 1603–17). 75 Ibid. See 18 Henry IV c. 4, enacted in 1439, cited in Yungblut, Strangers, p. 67. See ibid., pp. 61–77, for a summary of pre-Elizabethan laws and statutes concerning aliens. Between 1576 and 1579 one William Tipper, goldsmith, had agitated to become “host and supervisor” of all merchant strangers in London. Although he succeeded in obtaining RI¿FLDOSHUPLVVLRQIURPWKH&LW\DQGHYHQWXDOO\WKHVXSSRUWRIWKH3ULY\&RXQFLOSURWHVWV IURPVWUDQJHUVVXFFHHGHGLQEORFNLQJWKHIXOOLPSOHPHQWDWLRQRIKLVJUDQWVHH6FRXORXGL Returns, pp. 59–61.

“No Better Than Conduit Pipes”

71

the charters of 50 Edward III and the statutes of 16 Richard 2, c. 2 and 5 Henry IV, c. 9.76 Instead, aliens were to use intermediaries. Law and custom stipulated that rather than selling to chapmen, alien merchants were to provide their goods “unto WKHDUWL¿FHUVDQGUHWDLOHUVVXFKDVKDYHEHHQEURXJKWXSLQWKHVDPHWRWKHHQGWKDW their living might be maintained.”77 Yet strangers seemed intent on subverting these rules, to the detriment of England’s natural-born subjects. The laws regarding retailing had fallen into neglect, due both to the vast increase in the numbers of aliens and to the free reign given to them by the authorities, for they had lately “grown unto great multitudes” and “had such liberty within this realm in the retailing of foreign wares.”78$VDUHVXOWWKHUXOHVRQWKHERRNVZHQWXQHQIRUFHG0HUFKDQWVWUDQJHUV GHOLEHUDWHO\H[SORLWHGWKHIUHHGRPWKDWVWHPPHGIURPWKLVODFNRIHQIRUFHPHQW in doing so revealing an innate desire to harm their English hosts. Another early Stuart petition charged that immigrant merchants possessed both “diligence and cunning,” enabling them to side-step regulations and outpace their English competition. Aliens lived a life of “liberty without any governance or oversight of any the freemen of this city,” a circumstance which “they do very grossly abuse.” Unfettered by the daily constraints suffered by Londoners, they thrived at the expense of their hosts. Ordinary citizens were subject to a wide variety of obligations, “employed in public business for his majesty or for the city.” Yet the stranger was left with “opportunity and leisure,” free “to follow his own train.” This freedom led both to the impoverishment of the realm and to an inversion of hierarchy. Guests from abroad who, according to the City’s regulations, should abide in the houses (and under the control) of English hosts, instead “eat up the fat RIWKHODQGDQGPDNHWKHFRPPRQHUVRIWKLVFLW\WRLOIRUWKHP´79

76 Huntington, EL 2517, fol. 1v (undated, c. 1603–17). The provision against direct retailing in 16 Richard 2 appears in c. 1, rather than in c. 2, as the complaint suggests; see Statutes of the Realm, vol. 2, pp. 82–3. Scouloudi notes that a statute of 21 Henry VIII c.  ³HQDFWHG WKDW RQO\ GHQL]HQV FRXOG VHW XS KRXVH NHHS VKRS RU FKDPEHU ZKHUHLQ WKH\ exercise their handicraft.” However, aside from a few brief periods of enforcement, “the regulations were not observed”; Scouloudi, Returns, pp. 41–2. 77 Huntington, EL 2518, fol. 1r (undated, c. early Stuart). The prohibition against retailing was reiterated by James I in a “commission concerning strangers” of 1622, in response to the complaints of Londoners; see GL, MS 4647, fols. 163v–164r. However, it appears that changes to these prohibitions had previously been suggested, as shown by the protests of the lord mayor and aldermen of the City in May 1587 to a proposal to admit all IRUHLJQHUVDQGVWUDQJHUVWRWKHFORWKPDUNHWZLWKLQWKHOLEHUWLHVRI/RQGRQVHHCSP Dom. (OL],YRO± S)RUWKHZLGHUHFRQRPLFEDFNJURXQGWRWKLVVHH-'*RXOG “The Crisis in the Export Trade, 1586–1587,” English Historical Review, 71/279 (1956): 212–22. 78 Huntington, EL 2518, fol. 1r (undated, c. early Stuart). 79 Huntington, EL 2446, fol. 2r (1615).

Diversity and Difference in Early Modern London

72

$OLHQV DFFRUGLQJ WR VRPH FRPSODLQWV GHOLEHUDWHO\ VXEYHUWHG WKH PDUNHW E\ forestalling, hoarding their wares in order to raise prices.80 In this sense they were JXLOW\RIIDUPRUHWKDQVLPSO\E\SDVVLQJ(QJOLVKEURNHUVWRUHWDLOGLUHFWO\7KH way in which immigrants sold their goods demonstrated an obvious desire to ruin the nation’s own tradesmen. Merchant strangers should have sold through English intermediaries soon after arrival in England, or at least “within six months after WKHODQGLQJWKHUHRI´,QVWHDGWKH\ZLWKKHOGWKHLUZDUHVIURPWKHPDUNHWXQWLOWKH PRVWSUR¿WDEOHPRPHQW³NHHS>LQJ@WKHLUPHUFKDQGL]HVVRORQJDVWKH\OLVW´DQG ³IHHG>LQJ@WKHPDUNHWZLWKWKHPDWWKHLUSOHDVXUH´WRWKHGHWULPHQWRIWKHLUKRVW nation.81 Not content to illegally sell their own goods, strangers also maintained contacts throughout the realm whose goal it was to aid in the alien monopolization RIWKHFRXQWU\¶VFRPPRGLWLHV7KLVQHWZRUNRIDOLHQRUDOLHQFRQWUROOHG EX\HUV snapped up domestic merchandise: “the merchant strangers … have their factors DEURDGLQGLYHUVHSDUWVRIWKLVNLQJGRPDVWKHPVHOYHVDOVRLQLQQVDQGRWKHUSODFHV of this city to buy up and engross into their hands most of our new drapery.” Aliens WKXV FRUQHUHG WKH FORWK WUDGH E\ XVLQJ D QHWZRUN RI DFTXLVLWLYH VSLHV ³WKHUHLQ IRUHVWDOOLQJWKHPDUNHWRIWKLVFLW\DQGDIWHUZDUGVVHOO>LQJ@WKHVDPHDJDLQ´WRFLWL]HQ DQGVWUDQJHUDOLNH³VRWKDWPRVWSDUWVRIRXUQHZGUDSHU\LVQRWWREHERXJKWDW London, but at their hands.”82 Yet such acts were merely a means to an end, at root a moral issue, intimately tied to a host of wider practices that revealed merchant strangers to be engaged in the subversion of a broad range of social norms.

80

/DZVFRQFHUQLQJIRUHVWDOOLQJWKHEX\LQJRIJRRGVEHIRUHWKH\UHDFKHGWKHPDUNHW in order to affect the price) were intertwined with those against engrossing (buying in large quantities in order to achieve a monopoly). W.S. Holdsworth notes that cases concerning the infringement of laws against both practices “frequently came before the court of Star &KDPEHUDQGWKHUHFRUGVRIWKH>3ULY\@&RXQFLOFRQWDLQPDQ\HQWULHVDVWRWKHVXSSUHVVLRQ of forestalling and ingrossing” in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries; see William Searle Holdsworth, A History of English Law, 2nd ed., vol. 4 (London, 1937), p. 377. As E.P. Thompson has famously noted, there was a widespread perception throughout the eighteenth century that such laws should continue to be enforced. Moreover, although the legislation against forestalling was repealed in 1772, “the repealing Act was not well drawn” DQGWKHFKLHIMXVWLFHODWHU³WRRNLWXSRQKLPVHOIWRDQQRXQFHWKDWIRUHVWDOOLQJUHPDLQHGDQ indictable offence at common law.” Although more symbolic nods towards enforcement than a real attempt to deal with the problem, prosecutions of forestallers continued until the end of the eighteenth century; see E. P. Thompson, “The Moral Economy of the English Crowd in the Eighteenth Century,” Past and Present, 50 (1971): 88. 81 Huntington, EL 2517, fol. 1v (undated, c. 1603–17). According, at least, to a midVSHWLWLRQE\(QJOLVKKROGHUVRIWKHRI¿FHRQO\IUHHPHQVKRXOGDFWDVEURNHUVZLWKLQ the City, excluding both English foreigners and aliens; see CSP Dom., James I, vol. 11 (1623–25), p. 515. 82 Huntington, EL 2446, fol. 4r (1615). In July 1605 the clothiers of Colchester had also complained that Dutch immigrants engrossed their trade; see CSP Dom., James I, vol. 8 (1603–10), p. 229.

“No Better Than Conduit Pipes”

73

In order to retail their goods directly, evading the laws of the land, merchant strangers required a place to both live and to do business. Setting up secret shops in VXEGLYLGHGKRXVHVWKH\EUHDFKHGWKHUXOHVRIUHVLGHQF\DQGFRPPHUFHZHDNHQLQJ WKHQRUPVWKDWXVXDOO\RUGHUHGVRFLHW\DQGPDNLQJLWKDUGHUIRU/RQGRQHUVWR¿QG DSODFHWROLYH6WUDQJHUVSULFHGRXWRUGLQDU\SHRSOHE\WDNLQJ³WKHEHVWKRXVHV ZKHUHE\ WKH\ PDNH UHQWV GHDU´83 This was, according to one 1636 complaint, a deliberate act, conducted “for lucre and advantage.”84 At the same time, they transformed large, spacious residences into overcrowded slums. Alien merchants, RWKHUFRPSODLQDQWVDOOHJHG³WDNHXSWKHIDLUHVWKRXVHVLQWKHFLW\GLYLGHDQG¿W WKHPIRUWKHLUVHYHUDOXVHVDQGWDNHLQWRWKHPVHYHUDOORGJHUVDQGGZHOOHUV´85 These actions were part of a larger program to erode the quality of housing. As well as “the dividing of houses,” strangers erected “sheds, hovels, and cottages, putting into every room a family, to the great pestering of the city suburbs and places adjoining with inmates, aliens, and undersitters.” As a result, they enhanced ³WKHSULFHVRIYLFWXDOV¿ULQJDQGVXFKOLNH«WRWKHJUHDWRSSUHVVLRQDQGXWWHU undoing” of the English.86 Such overcrowding implied the erosion of hierarchy. %HFDXVHRIWKHVSOLWWLQJXSRI/RQGRQ¶V¿QHVWUHVLGHQFHV³WKHUHLQWKH\DUHWZR three or more householders commonly together.”87 Strangers thus did more than XQGHUPLQHWKHLUKRVWVE\EUHDNLQJWKHUXOHVE\FRPELQLQJ³GLYHUVIDPLOLHVLQRQH KRXVH´WKH\ZHUHVHWWLQJXSK\GUDOLNHUHVLGHQFHVFRQVLVWLQJRIPXOWLSOHKHDGV88 Immigrant housing patterns were about more than the cost of rent or the potential confusion caused by multiple householders under one roof. The alien residence, as a site of illegal trade, was custom-built to undermine English merchants, serving as a site for illicit, damaging commercial activity. After settling “in the fairest KRXVHVLQWKLVFLW\ZKLFKWKH\NHHS«WRWKHPVHOYHV´DOLHQPHUFKDQWVXVHGWKHLU residence as a place of business in which “they utter privately all sorts of wares and commodities thereby depriving the citizens of their best customs.”89 The LPSUHVVLRQJLYHQE\VRPHFRPSODLQWVLVRIDVLWHRIDOPRVWGHPRQLFHI¿FLHQF\LQ ZKLFKOHJLRQVRIDOLHQVLQFDEDOOLNHXQLRQVSHHGLO\GHSOR\HGPLQLRQVWRXQGHUFXW London’s native traders: their houses be contrived in such sort that any of them is able … in the several ZDUHKRXVHV LQ WKH VDPH KRXVH PDGH DQG ¿WWHG IRU WKDW SXUSRVH WR VHUYH DQG

83

Huntington, EL 2516, fol. 1r (c. 1615). GL, MS 4647, fol. 181v (1636). 85 Huntington, EL 2517, fol. 1v (undated, c. 1603–17). 86 GL, MS 4647, fol. 182r (1636). 87 Huntington, EL 2516, fol. 1r (c. 1615). 88 GL, MS 4647, fol. 157r (1635). 89 Huntington, EL 2446, fol. 2r (1615). See also CSP Dom. Eliz I, vol. 4 (1595–97), p. 565, for earlier concerns regarding strangers and the payment of customs. 84

Diversity and Difference in Early Modern London

74

sell commodities unto a freeman of this city, unto a country chapman, and unto a pedlar.90

The result was a place of business that, because it was beyond the purview of WKH&LW\¶VODZVDQGFXVWRPVFRXOGVZLIWO\DGDSWWRWKHH[LJHQFLHVRIWKHPDUNHW FDWHULQJ WR (QJOLVK SHRSOH RI DOO UDQNV ,I QHHGV EH VWUDQJHUV ZRXOG DOVR OHDYH these hidden locations, traveling “from shop to shop, from chamber to chamber, from inn to inn, from county to county, to ambassadors’ chambers … leaving no place unsearched” for the sale of their goods.91 Aliens inverted the natural hierarchy of the household, setting women and VHUYDQWVWRZRUNXVXDOO\IRUELGGHQWR(QJOLVKGHSHQGHQWV6XFKLQYHUVLRQKHOSHG strangers maintain an unfair competitive edge, “their wives and servants using WKHLUWUDGHRIUHWDLOLQJRIDOONLQGVRIIRUHLJQZDUHVZKLFKWKH\EX\RIWKHLURZQ country.”92 Evading the City’s rules, aliens employed “both men and women EURNHUVWRVHOOWKHLUZDUHVIRUWKHP´93 In this sense, complaints about retailing dovetailed with those relating to housing. Strangers had an advantage over English retailers both because they were willing to employ all members of the hierarchy and EHFDXVHVXFKSUDFWLFHVWRRNSODFHLQVHFUHWEH\RQGWKHVFRSHRIFLYLFDXWKRULWLHV women and the servants of the strangers, dwelling in an exempted and obscure place in some little shop or chamber … doth utter and sell more wares in one day than our country people dwelling in a place or street open … can utter in ten days.94

The authors of these petitions had come to the disturbing conclusion that it was precisely because aliens were willing to overturn the natural social order that they were able to outpace their English hosts. Strangers were such successful retailers QRW MXVW EHFDXVH WKH\ GHOLEHUDWHO\ EURNH WKH HFRQRPLF UXOHV EXW EHFDXVH WKH\ EURNHWKHUXOHVRIVRFLHW\E\OLYLQJLQVHFUHWLYHKRXVHKROGVZLWKPXOWLSOHKHDGV empowering women and servants to sell of their own accord. These practices made abuses such as forestalling possible. Aliens, “having their servants and others as EURNHUVWRFDUU\WKHLUZDUHVDERXWDQGXWWHUWKHPE\UHWDLO´FRXOGPDQLSXODWHWKH PDUNHWWRWKHLUEHQH¿W95

90

Huntington, EL 2446, fol. 2r (1615). One proposal suggested that every freeman of the City of London be made to swear an oath “not to connive at the trading of foreigners” (presumably, in this case, referring to anyone, English or alien, not free of the City); see CSP Dom., James I, vol. 11 (1623–25), p. 531. 91 GL, MS 4647, fols. 156v–157r (1635). 92 Huntington, EL 2518, fol. 1r (undated, c. early Stuart). 93 GL, MS 4647, fol. 156v (1635). 94 Huntington, EL 2518, fol. 1r (undated, c. early Stuart). 95 Ibid.

“No Better Than Conduit Pipes”

75

Merchant strangers, then, conducted their harmful economic acts on the spatial margins, from households where the normal rules of hierarchy did not apply. Yet they also spread their acquisitive tentacles beyond the home, into the neighborhoods of London and far into the surrounding countryside. Members of DOOUDQNVDQGJHQGHUVZRUNHG¿HQGLVKO\WRXQGHUPLQHWKH(QJOLVKE\³XWWHU>LQJ@ all their country’s wares unto the people of our nation.” Yet the same would “not but upon great necessity buy any one penny worth of our country’s people.”96 Thus there was a wilful refusal on the part of the non-English to play by the rules DQGWRLQDQ\ZD\EHQH¿WWKHLU(QJOLVKKRVWV7KHDLPRIDOLHQVZDVDSSDUHQWO\ QROHVVWKDQWRWDOHFRQRPLFGRPLQDWLRQDQGWKHUHGXFWLRQRIWKHNLQJ¶VVXEMHFWV WREHJJDU\7KHSDUWLFXODUZD\VLQZKLFKVWUDQJHUVEURNHWKHUXOHVZHUHPHUHO\ outward manifestations of this larger goal. Mercantilism and Difference Mercantilist economic theory provided a powerful vocabulary for the construction of difference, underwriting many complaints against merchant strangers. In emphasizing a positive balance of trade and the accumulation of bullion within the realm, mercantilism focused special attention on the activities of aliens, legitimizing a variety of positions on immigration. The settlement of strangers PLJKWIRVWHULQGXVWU\ZLWKLQWKHNLQJGRPQHJDWLQJWKHQHHGIRULPSRUWVDQGWKXV increasing the net wealth of the nation. Yet an emphasis on the country’s net wealth implied concerns about its permeability. Was the nation retaining its bullion? If not, who was responsible? Merchant strangers were prime targets of those concerned about the possible emptying of the nation’s riches abroad. Moreover, allegations that aliens were indeed responsible for the loss of wealth went hand in hand with broader claims about their status and position within society as a whole. 0HUFDQWLOLVWLQÀHFWHGFRPSODLQWVPDGHIDUUHDFKLQJVWDWHPHQWVDERXWGLIIHUHQFH The view that wealth was rooted in a limited quantity of precious metals was itself QRWKLQJQHZ¿QGLQJH[SUHVVLRQLQPHGLHYDO³EXOOLRQLVP´97 By the mid-sixteenth century, some advocates of commonwealth ideology tempered enthusiasm for specie with an emphasis on moral reform and social justice. The 1549 Discourse of the Commonweal asserted that gold and silver were, at best, necessary evils, to be eliminated after the establishment of a godly commonwealth in England and the moral reform of its neighbors. The text’s anonymous writer (probably Sir Thomas Smith) also called for the growth of surplus corn to aid neighboring countries experiencing dearth.98 In later decades, however, a growing body of mercantilist 96

Ibid. Yungblut, Strangers, pp. 97–8. 98 A.N. McLaren, Political Culture in the Reign of Elizabeth I: Queen and Commonwealth, 1558–1585, Ideas in Context (Cambridge, 1999), pp. 85, 88. For a discussion of the text’s authorship, see Mary Dewar, “The Authorship of the ‘Discourse of the Commonweal,’” Economic History Review, 19/2 (1966): 388–400. 97

76

Diversity and Difference in Early Modern London

ZULWHUVUHMHFWHGVXFKTXDOL¿FDWLRQV*HUDOG0DO\QHVDQG7KRPDV0LOOHVZULWLQJ in the 1590s and 1600s, emphasized the need to accumulate treasure within the realm. And while Edward Misselden and Thomas Mun would later maintain that some export of coin was allowable, this was only to be done “as capital guaranteed WREULQJEDFNPRUHJROGDQGVLOYHULQWRWKHFRXQWU\¶VFRIIHUV´99 Thus, while the term “mercantilism” covers a range of economic positions that changed over time, here I will use it as a shorthand for those sharing a common emphasis on both the accumulation of raw specie and a positive trading balance. The development of mercantilist thought is often tied to the growth in SRZHUDQGLQÀXHQFHRIWKHQDWLRQVWDWHDQLQÀXHQFHVHHPLQJO\JDLQHGDWWKH expense of parochial, civic and local authorities. In England, debates in the ¿UVWKDOIRIWKHVHYHQWHHQWKFHQWXU\DERXWWKHHIIHFWVRILQWHUQDWLRQDOFRPPHUFH culminated in the passage of the Navigation Acts of 1651 and 1660.100 These provide a “classic example” of a state-centered policy rooted in a mercantilist model, directing formerly unregulated commercial activities (in this case shipping) “to enrich the nation as a whole.”101 As Immanuel Wallerstein has noted, “state policies of economic nationalism” exhibited “a concern with the circulation of commodities, whether in terms of the movement of bullion or in the creation of balances of trade.”102 According to this interpretation, the state ZDVWKHSULPHEHQH¿FLDU\RIPHUFDQWLOLVWSROLFLHVRQWKHULVHZLWKLQDJURZLQJ capitalist economy.103

99 Jonathan Gil Harris, Sick Economies: Drama, Mercantilism, and Disease in Shakespeare’s England (Philadelphia, PA, 2004), p. 6. 100 7KRPDV/HQJ³&RPPHUFLDO&RQÀLFWDQG5HJXODWLRQLQWKH'LVFRXUVHRI7UDGHLQ Seventeenth-century England,” Historical Journal, 48/4 (2005): 935. 101 Jan De Vries, Economy of Europe in an Age of Crisis (Cambridge, 1976), p. 237. 102 Immanuel Wallerstein, The Modern World-System, vol. 2, Mercantilism and the Consolidation of the European World-Economy, 1600–1750, Studies in Social Discontinuity 1HZ
“No Better Than Conduit Pipes”

77

Yet mercantilism also legitimized local authorities acting against central government, providing a vocabulary with which to decry the effects of immigration. The City used the same broad economic model as the Crown to complain against the activities of merchant strangers and to criticize policies that fostered their presence, appealing to bodies such as the Privy Council about the damage aliens GLGWRWKHZHDOWKRIWKHNLQJGRP0HUFDQWLOLVPZDVLQWKLVVHQVHKLJKO\HODVWLFDV well as bolstering the state at the expense of recalcitrant localities it offered those localities a language of resistance against the state.104 Crown and City advocated opposing positions towards merchant strangers using the same economic language, the Crown by encouraging immigration to foster trade and the City by pointing to the harm done by aliens to the retention of the realm’s wealth. For the purposes of this chapter, then, I will approach mercantilist economic thought less as a theory with particular implications for state-building than as a discourse used by some /RQGRQHUVWROHJLWLPDWHPDUNHUVRIH[FOXVLRQ:LWKLWVHPSKDVLVRQERUGHUVDQG porosity, inside and outside, mercantilism leant itself for use as a powerful tool for the construction of difference.105 For Thomas Mun, the manner in which the English conducted commerce with strangers was integral to the economic prosperity of the realm. Put succinctly, “we PXVWHYHUREVHUYHWKLVUXOHWRVHOOPRUHWR«>WKHP@\HDUO\WKDQZHFRQVXPHRI theirs in value.”106 Writing in 1621 in order to demonstrate how trade with the East Indies could enrich the nation, Mun cited the many ways in which the economic GHVLJQVRIDOLHQVFRXOGSURYHLQMXULRXVWRWKHNLQJGRP¶VQHWZRUWK:HDOWKZDV measured by the presence of bullion, the export of which could in turn lead to a commerce, embracing “commercial interdependence” while “maintaining independence”; /HQJ³&RPPHUFLDO&RQÀLFW´S 104 Jan De Vries tempers the state-building implications of mercantilist economic thought by emphasizing the practical, “ad hoc character” of many mercantilist policies. 6XFKPHDVXUHVFRQWULEXWHGDVPXFKWRFRUUXSWLRQDQGWKHHQULFKPHQWRIORFDORI¿FLDOVDV to the inexorable rise of state power; see De Vries, Economy of Europe, p. 239. Conversely, -RDQ7KLUVN KDV FULWLFL]HG WKH LQÀXHQFH RI$GDP 6PLWK¶V HODERUDWLRQ RI WKLV YHU\ SRLQW Writing in the eighteenth century, at a time when “the consistent pursuit of mercantilist REMHFWLYHVKDGEHJXQWRXQGHUPLQHWKHOLYHOLKRRGRISHDVDQWZRUNHUV´6PLWKGUHZDWWHQWLRQ to “the debasement of mercantilism, its manipulation by ‘the rich and powerful.’” However, DV7KLUVNQRWHVWKHSULRUHPSKDVLVXSRQ³EXLOGLQJXSQDWLRQDOVHOIVXI¿FLHQF\KDGLQLWV earlier phase permitted many new industries to establish themselves in the deep interstices of the economy.” The small producers that Smith saw reduced to indigence were, in fact, WKH LQGLUHFW FUHDWLRQ RI WKH HFRQRPLF JURZWK EURXJKW E\ 6WXDUW SURMHFWRUV LQÀXHQFHG E\ PHUFDQWLOLVWWKRXJKW6HH7KLUVNEconomic Policy, p. 154. 105 Questioning its unity at the level of state policy, Jonathan Gil Harris also suggests the need to approach mercantilism “as primarily a discursive rather than an ideological or economic system”; see his Sick Economies, p. 6. 106 Thomas Mun, England’s Treasure by Foreign Trade, or the Balance of Our Foreign Trade Is the Rule of Our Treasure (London, 1664), in J.R. McCulloch (ed.), Early English Tracts on Commerce (Cambridge, 1954), p. 125.

Diversity and Difference in Early Modern London

78

GDPDJLQJQXPEHURIIRUHLJQJRRGVÀRRGLQJWKHGRPHVWLFPDUNHW0RQH\³PDGH RYHUKLWKHUE\VWUDQJHUV«DQGSUHVHQWO\FDUULHGEH\RQGWKHVHDVWRDVHFRQGSUR¿W´ GUHZZLWKLWWKHQDWLRQ¶VWUDGH:LWKKDUGFXUUHQF\GUDLQLQJDEURDG³WKHWDNHUVXS of money in foreign countries must necessarily drive a trade to those places, from ZKHQFHWKH\GUDZWKHLUPRQH\V´,QWKLVZD\VWUDQJHUV³GR¿OOXVXSZLWKIRUHLJQ commodities, without the vent of our own wares.”107 Such a negative balance of trade would cause the nation’s economic ruin. If there “be imported yearly a greater value in foreign wares, than … we do export of our own commodities,” the result would be “a manifest impoverishing of the Commonwealth.”108 Mun’s message was clear: if the economic designs of aliens followed their own course, they would greatly reduce the wealth of the nation.109 Yet mercantilist thought had deeper implications for the creation of difference. As we will see, complaints against merchant strangers that articulated fears about the nation’s net worth also made powerful statements about their motives and connections, over and above calling attention to the harmful effects of aliens’ trading practices. Such protests suggested that the draining of wealth abroad was a deliberate goal of aliens, not just an unintended consequence of their actions. Just as strangers conspired to control the English cloth trade, so they combined to impoverish the realm by exporting its specie and disrupting its balance of trade. 3HWLWLRQHUVHYRNLQJPHUFDQWLOLVWIHDUVDERXWWKHUHPRYDORIWKHQDWLRQ¶V¿QLWHZHDOWK DEURDG²ZKHWKHU DV FRLQ QDWXUDO UHVRXUFHV RU PDQXIDFWXUHG JRRGV²GHSOR\HG stereotypes of aliens who intentionally conspired to enrich their brethren beyond the seas at the expense of their English hosts. Conspiratorial in nature, strangers FOHDUO\ H[KLELWHG ¿HQGLVK RUJDQL]DWLRQDO SURZHVV WKRVH LQ (QJODQG RSHUDWLQJ in perfect concert with their brethren abroad. Complaints of this nature made 107

Thomas Mun, A Discourse of Trade, from England Unto the East-Indies: Answering to Diverse Objections Which Are Usually Made against the Same (London, 1621), in McCulloch, Early English Tracts on Commerce, p. 43. 108 Ibid., p. 45. Joyce Appleby has noted that although Mun’s focus was the balance of trade, neither he nor his contemporaries “dealt comprehensively with the relation of supply and demand.” Rather, “total demand appeared inelastic”; Joyce Appleby, “Ideology and Theory: The Tension between Political and Economic Liberalism in Seventeenthcentury England,” American Historical Review ±,WZRXOGWDNHDQHZ generation of writers in the latter decades of the century to posit what was, in effect, a XQLYHUVDOXUJHIRULQFUHDVHGFRQVXPSWLRQDWDOOOHYHOVRIWKHVRFLDOVFDOH7KHSRRUOLNHWKH ULFKKDG¿UVW³WREHFRQYHUWHGWRSRVVHVVLYHLQGLYLGXDOLVPDQGHFRQRPLFUDWLRQDOLW\8QWLO this transition had been made, class discipline needed the support of economic theories bolstered by religion and patriotism”; ibid., p. 515. 109 Mun, a director of the East India Company, made his case for trade with the East ,QGLHVZLWKLQDFODVVLFDOO\PHUFDQWLOLVWIUDPHZRUNDUJXLQJWKDWLWOHGWRDQHWLQFUHDVHLQ bullion within the realm. Although bullion was exported to the Indies, goods from the east were then traded with the Continent in exchange for a greater amount of hard currency, XOWLPDWHO\ HQULFKLQJ WKH NLQJGRP VHH -5 0F&XOORFK HG  Early English Tracts on Commerce (Cambridge, 1954), pp. v–vi.

“No Better Than Conduit Pipes”

79

powerful statements about loyalty and assimilation, suggesting that immigrants could never, in fact, belong. Whether they were open about their transient nature or articulated a desire to settle in England for good, alien loyalties were at all times oriented towards their countries of origin. Free or not, denizen or not, merchant VWUDQJHUVZHUHSULPDULO\SDUWLFLSDQWVLQDQLQWHUQDWLRQDOSORWWRVXFNWKHHFRQRPLF marrow from the bones of the nation. John Fabian’s Modest Proposal In 1571 the London draper John Fabian wrote to Lord Burghley with a scheme to regulate the illicit sale of goods by merchant strangers, beginning at least 22 years of largely one-sided correspondence.110 Painfully aware, even at this early date, of the unprecedented alien population (“their numbers daily increasing surmount all memory”), Fabian pointed to the damage done by these new arrivals.111 As we have seen, the law forbade aliens from selling their own goods (as well as the JRRGVRIRWKHUV WKH\ZHUHLQVWHDGVXSSRVHGWRXVH(QJOLVKEURNHUV
For a chronological summary of Fabian’s correspondence with Burghley, see Scouloudi, Returns, pp. 61–3. 111 BL, Lansdowne MSS 13, fol. 120r. 112 Ibid. 113 Ibid. 114 Ibid., fol. 121r. “Leger,” according to the OED, is an obsolete spelling of “ledger,” an archaic meaning of which includes one “who is permanently or constantly in a place; D UHVLGHQW´ ³'HPRUDXQW´ LV DQ LUUHJXODU VSHOOLQJ RI ³GHPXUUDQW´ GH¿QHG DV ³DELGLQJ staying, dwelling, resident.” See OED, s.v. “ledger,” “demurrant.”

Diversity and Difference in Early Modern London

80

QDWLYH FRXQWU\ WKH\ UXQ XSRQ LW OLNHZLVH HQKDQFLQJ WKH SULFH KHUH DQG VHQG LW DZD\´,QHLWKHUFDVHERWKYLFWLPDQGEHQH¿FLDU\DUHFOHDUIRU³WKHVWUDQJHUVHDW the meat as it were out of our English merchants’ mouths, even at their own doors, greatly enriching themselves thereby.”115 Fabian’s solution promised to put a stop to the merchant strangers’ corrosive HIIHFWRQ(QJODQG¶VPHUFDQWLOLVWVHFXULW\$VSDUWRIKLVGXWLHVDVEURNHUKHZRXOG NHHSDERRNLQZKLFKKHZRXOGUHFRUGWKHTXDQWLW\DQGTXDOLW\RIDOOJRRGVWKDW aliens transported in and out of London. Such a “subtle device” would prevent the defrauding of the queen’s customs. It would also ensure an accurate tally of WKH QDWLRQ¶V EDODQFH RI WUDGH DOORZLQJ RI¿FLDOV WR NQRZ ³ZKHWKHU WKH IRUHLJQ wares brought in to the realm or the proper commodities of the realm transported RXWGRVXUPRXQWHDFKRWKHURUQRW´6XFKNQRZOHGJHLQWKHKDQGVRIWKHSULQFH Fabian suggested, “is of no small moment,” amounting to nothing less than a full accounting of the value of the realm.116 Without this accurate account of the nation’s trade, aliens would continue to defraud Her Majesty’s customs (illicit VDOHVEHFDXVHWKH\ZHUHRIIWKHERRNVGRGJHGWD[HVDQGGXWLHV VSLULWLQJYDOXDEOH wealth abroad, in the form of both goods and specie. Sadly, for Fabian at least, WKHVHSURSRVDOVIHOORQGHDIHDUVKHGLGQRWEHFRPHVROHEURNHUWRDOODOLHQV117 7KLV ZDV QRW KRZHYHU WKURXJK ODFN RI HIIRUW +LV FRUUHVSRQGHQFH WR %XUJKOH\ continued over the course of two decades, with a plan for greater “control of the H[FKDQJH´ LQ  D UHLWHUDWLRQ RI KLV EURNHUDJH VFKHPH LQ  DQG IXUWKHU proposals to control strangers in 1588 and 1590.118 As a perceptive observer of the damages caused by unregulated immigration, )DELDQPDGHWKHFUXFLDOOLQNEHWZHHQLOOLFLWUHWDLOLQJE\VWUDQJHUVDWKRPHDQGWKHLU ultimate, hidden goal of draining the nation’s wealth abroad. The subversion of the NLQJGRP¶VODZVFRQFHUQLQJLPSRUWVDQGH[SRUWVSURYLGHGRQWKHRQHKDQGWKH goods for aliens to sell illegally, and on the other the means for the transportation of hard currency beyond the seas, in both cases duty-free. His 1584 complaint DQGUHDUWLFXODWLRQRIKLVGHVLUHWREHFRPH(QJODQG¶VVROHEURNHU ERWKLOOXVWUDWHV WKHORJLFRIWKHVHIHDUVDQGPDNHVFOHDUWKHWUXHSRVLWLRQRIPHUFKDQWVWUDQJHUV 7KHVXEYHUVLRQRIFXVWRPVGXWLHVZDVVRPHWKLQJWKDWERWK(QJOLVKDQGDOLHQDOLNH participated in, although strangers were particularly culpable: 115

BL, Lansdowne MSS 13, fol. 121v. Ibid., fol. 120v. 117 As Irene Scouloudi notes, there is no sign of a grant to Fabian in the Patent Rolls, WKRXJKLQ-XO\KHGRHVUHIHU³WRKLVJUDQWRIµDOPRVWWKUHH\HDUVSDVWIRUWKHEURFNHUDJH of strangers’”; Scouloudi, Returns, p. 62. However, given the reiteration of his request over subsequent years it is safe to assume that he did not in fact achieve the position he desired. 118 For 1574 see BL, Lansdowne MSS 18/55, fols. 119–20; for 1584, see BL, Lansdowne MSS 41; for 1588, see BL, Lansdowne MSS, 56/55 (all cited in Scouloudi, Returns, p. 62). For 1590, see BL, Lansdowne MSS 65. Fabian’s swan song seems to have been a letter to Burghley in 1593 addressing points raised by strangers in their own defense; see BL, Lansdowne MSS 62, fol. 185, cited in Scouloudi, Returns, p. 63. 116

“No Better Than Conduit Pipes”

81

>6@XFKPHUFKDQWVDVGZHOOXSRQWKHZDWHU¶VVLGHDQGKDYHZKDUIVRUNH\VDQG cranes of their own do not only deceive the queen’s majesty of much custom, but also by that secret means in the night time may convey in and out of this her highness’ realm merchandize forbidden and not lawful to be brought in or carried out as well by her highness own merchants and subjects as also by PHUFKDQWVWUDQJHUV>@119

7KHORFDWLRQRIVXFKQHIDULRXVDFWLYLWLHVERWKLQWLPHDWQLJKWDIWHUGDUN DQGLQ space (in liminal waterside locations, beyond the control of the authorities), lent itself WRWKHXOWLPDWHDLPRIWKHVWUDQJHU³'XWFKPHQ´LQSDUWLFXODUXQGHUWRRNWKHVHDFWV RIHYDVLRQ³LQKDELWLQJPRVWRIWKHPXSRQWKHVDLGNH\VDQGZKDUIV´DQGFRQYH\LQJ “by night time at their pleasure gold and silver.”120 Practices that indirectly removed ZHDOWKIURPWKHUHDOPWKXVPDVNHGWKHLQWHQWLRQDOH[SRUWRIEXOOLRQ )DELDQ¶VUHLWHUDWLRQRIKLVUHTXHVWWREHPDGHEURNHUPDNHVLWFOHDUWKDW he would be able to stem the tide of lost specie caused by the illicit activities of merchant strangers, if only the government were to grant him the power to do so. His words offer both a statement of the harm that alien merchants had already done, and a further iteration that his policies would provide a virtual panacea for WKHQDWLRQ¶VHFRQRPLFZRHV,IKHZHUHPDGHVROHEURNHUDQGJLYHQWKHFKDQFHWR LPSOHPHQWKLVSODQWKH³PRQH\VJROGDQGVLOYHUVKDOOEHNHSWZLWKLQWKHODQGDQG WKDWZKLFKKDWKEHHQFRQYH\HGRXWVKDOOUHWXUQEDFNDJDLQZLWKDGYDQWDJH´7KH navy would be “better maintained, and multitudes of laboring people in all places VKDOOJHWWKHLUOLYLQJZKRQRZLQWKLVKDUGWLPHDUHSLQFKHGIRUZDQWRIZRUNE\ great misery.”121,QRWKHUZRUGV)DELDQ¶VSROLFLHVZRXOGSOXJWKHFXUUHQWOHDNDQG the nation would prosper accordingly. $OWKRXJKKHZDVXQVXFFHVVIXO-RKQ)DELDQZDVQRORQHFUDQNPDQ\RWKHUV HFKRHGKLVFRQFHUQV+LVIDLOXUHWRUHFHLYHDJUDQWZDVPRUHDVLJQRIKLVODFNRI success in gaining patronage than an indication that his ideas were in any way PDUJLQDO/DZVDOUHDG\RQWKHERRNVVKRZWKDWPDQ\DOUHDG\UHJDUGHGUHWDLOLQJE\ strangers as harmful.122 The year 1589 saw abortive parliamentary legislation and a proposed bill before the Court of Aldermen to further restrict the practice, with another bill in Parliament against retailing in 1593.123 And where Fabian tried, others succeeded: in 1590 John Allington, also a draper, obtained a license for the UHJLVWUDWLRQRIDOOVKLSSLQJFRQWUDFWV²QRVROHEURNHUEXWIRU)DELDQQRGRXEWD step in the right direction.124 119

BL, Lansdowne MSS 41, fol. 51v. Ibid. 121 BL, Lansdowne MSS 65, fol. 98r. 122 See Huntington, EL 2517, fol. 1v (undated, c. 1603–17). 123 Scouloudi, Returns, pp. 62–3. 124 As Scouloudi notes, Allington received “the Queen’s license to register all contracts between merchants, owners and masters of ships before they sailed and to stay them from departing before the license had been obtained”; ibid., p. 62. 120

Diversity and Difference in Early Modern London

82

2WKHUDQWLDOLHQFRPSODLQWVUHÀHFW)DELDQ¶VFRQFHUQV$QXPEHURISHWLWLRQV draw the same connection between the trading practices of merchant strangers and the deliberate extraction of the nation’s bullion, articulating the view that the removal of wealth from the land was intentional rather than merely an indirect consequence of avaricious business practices. Once again, such actions implied varying degrees of conspiracy, malevolence and duplicity on the part of strangers. Aliens intentionally impoverished the land by engaging in unauthorized retailing; FRPSODLQWV WKDW VWUDQJHUV E\SDVVHG (QJOLVK EURNHUV DQG VROG JRRGV GLUHFWO\ SUHVXPHGWKDWWKH\ZRXOGHYHQWXDOO\IXQQHOWKHSUR¿WVJDLQHGE\VXFKSUDFWLFHV RXWRIWKHNLQJGRP,QVWHDGRIHQULFKLQJWKHUHDOPLPPLJUDQWPHUFKDQWVZRXOG WUDQVSRUWWKHLULOOLFLWO\PDGHSUR¿WVWRSDUWVEH\RQGWKHVHDVEHKDYLRUWKDWVWHPPHG from their very foreignness. Some complaints viewed the mere fact that merchant strangers imported goods into the realm as evidence that they subsequently removed its wealth, for the monies gained inevitably found their way abroad. Regardless of where the ¿QDQFLDOWUDLOOHGWKHVLPSOHIDFWRIDWUDGHGH¿FLWZDVDVLJQRIWKHGDPDJHDOLHQV caused. As one 1615 complaint alleged: whereas the foreign commodities imported by the merchant strangers of the Netherlands do amount verily to an incredible sum of money … it cannot be SURYHGWKDWDOOWKH'XWFKQDWLRQSXWWRJHWKHUGRHPSOR\DQGPDNHUHWXUQLQWKH commodities of this land.125

Thus, in retailing foreign wares, strangers enriched themselves while impoverishing WKHUHDOP0RUHGLUHFWO\WKH\DOVRSXW(QJOLVKUHWDLOHUVRXWRIZRUNUHGXFLQJWKHP LQWKHZRUGVRIDOLVWRI(OL]DEHWKDQDOOHJDWLRQVWR³EHJJDUVDQGEDQNUXSWV´7KH\ GLGWKLVSDUWO\E\WDNLQJWKHZRUNRIQDWLYHV³VRWKDWZKDWWKH(QJOLVKUHWDLOHUKDWK lost the retailing stranger hath gotten.” 126 The damage such retailing caused was also due to the aliens’ broader mercantile connections. Strangers so easily harmed the English by illicitly selling goods because they acted as “both merchants and retailers,” one person engaging in two occupations, a practice “not permitted to an English man.”127 In doing so, WKH\ XQGHUFXW WKHLU KRVWV ÀRRGLQJ WKH PDUNHW ZLWK FKHDS JRRGV IURP DEURDG According to the lord mayor and aldermen, writing in 1611 to the Privy Council, “being merchants and retailers both they may … afford many things at cheaper UDWHVWKHQWKHIUHHPDQFDQ´SDUWO\EHFDXVHWKH\EHQH¿WHGIURP³WKHLUDOOLHVDQG friends upon the other parts.”128 Even when alien retailers operated independently they nevertheless naturally gravitated towards merchant strangers for their goods. Rather than buying from the English, they patronized, according to an Elizabethan 125 126 127 128

Huntington, EL 2446, fol. 4r (1615). BL, Lansdowne MSS 99, fol. 171r (c. 1580). Ibid. CLRO, Remembrancia, vol. 3, fol. 20r.

“No Better Than Conduit Pipes”

83

grievance, those “of foreign nations of whom only they will buy such things as they need and of no Englishman for the most part.”129 In this way business fell into the hands of overseas nations, reducing domestic prosperity. Whether explicitly importing goods from abroad or illicitly purchasing foreign products from other VWUDQJHUVWRVHOORQWKH(QJOLVKPDUNHWWKHGDPDJLQJHIIHFWZDVFOHDU 7KH KDUP FDXVHG E\ LPSRUWLQJ IRUHLJQ JRRGV ZDV GLUHFWO\ OLQNHG WR WKH deliberate export of specie in the form of gold, aliens enriching themselves “by WUDQVSRUWLQJWKHFRLQDQGEXOOLRQRIWKLVNLQJGRP´130 In the past, strangers had traded foreign goods for those produced domestically. The English had “exchanged and bartered with these merchant strangers for their foreign commodities, which now the merchant strangers refuse to do.” Instead, aliens “will sell nothing but for UHDG\PRQH\´XVLQJ³WKHLUVHUYDQW>V@DQGRWKHUVDVEURNHUVWRFDUU\WKHLUZDUHV about and utter them by retail.” Once English coin had fallen into alien hands, it ZDV³FRQYHUWHGLQWRJROGZKLFKWKH\FRQYH\RYHU«>WR@WKHLURZQFRXQWULHV´ The net effect of such deliberate procurement of bullion was catastrophic: “the commodities of our own nation are left unsold, our poor people unrelieved, our treasury diminished, and they in foreign countries only enriched.”131 The only way WRPDNHWKHQDWLRQZHDOWK\DJDLQZDVWRHQVXUHWKDWWKHPRQH\JDLQHGE\WKHVHOOLQJ of foreign goods remained in the country. This was the intention of the system of (QJOLVKEURNHUVWKDWVWUDQJHUVKDGVRZDQWRQO\DEXVHGDQGWKH(QJOLVKVRIRROLVKO\ QHJOHFWHG2QO\LI³>H@YHU\PHUFKDQW«ZKLFKVKDOOEULQJDQ\PHUFKDQGL]HLQWRWKLV realm” were to “employ the money received for the same on the commodities of this UHDOP´FRXOG(QJODQGEUHDNIUHHIURPDOLHQHFRQRPLFGRPLQDWLRQ132 $OLHQVZKRÀRXWHGWKHQDWLRQ¶VUHWDLOLQJODZVWUDQVSRUWLQJJRRGVDQGFRLQDJH beyond the seas, did so with the deliberate goal of impoverishing the English. 7KHLQÀLFWLRQRIKDUPE\WKHDFFXPXODWLRQRIZHDOWKDWWKHH[SHQVHRIRQH¶VKRVW country was the motivating factor behind all strangers’ actions. This was, at heart, a result of innate alien characteristics, for “the disposition of strangers is that their H\HLVDOZD\V¿UVWXSRQWKHLUSUR¿W´,WIROORZHGWKDWWKHLUDWWHQWLRQZDVDWDOOWLPHV DOVR¿[HGXSRQWKHPDQ\UHVRXUFHVRIWKHUHDOPDQGWKHRSSRUWXQLWLHVDIIRUGHG for their removal abroad. As well as cloth, aliens were intent on transporting ³DQ\RWKHUSURKLELWHGJRRGVRXWRIWKLVODQGDVYLFWXDOVFRUQ>DQG@PXQLWLRQ>V@´ 6WDWHPHQWVRIVXFKPDOHYROHQWLQWHQWPDNHSRZHUIXOFODLPVDERXWWKHQDWXUHRI the immigrant community as a whole and the extent to which strangers could ever claim to belong, however highly assimilated they might appear to become. Even if alien merchants were to live their entire life in England, ties to the host 129

BL, Lansdowne MSS 99, fol. 171r (c. 1580). +XQWLQJWRQ(/IROU 9DULRXV(QJOLVKDUWL¿FHUVDOVRFRPSODLQHG RI WKH LPSRUWLQJ RI ¿QLVKHG JRRGV E\ VWUDQJHUV XQGHUFXWWLQJ GRPHVWLF PDQXIDFWXULQJ (for example, the hemp dressers of London c. 1625, who were concerned by merchant strangers bringing rope into the realm); see CSP Dom., Charles I, vol. 1 (1625–26), p. 205. 131 Huntington, EL 2518, fol. 1r (undated, c. early Stuart). 132 Huntington, EL 2459, fol. 1v (undated, c. early Stuart). 130

Diversity and Difference in Early Modern London

84

country were negligible at best. All loyalties lay abroad. Following a life of intentionally funneling goods overseas, in death too strangers emptied the realm RIZHDOWK³,IWKH\GLHGKHUHWKH\OHDYHLWWRWKHLURZQWULEHWKHUHLQWKLVNLQJGRPRU EHTXHDWKLWWRWKHLUNLQGUHGDQGIULHQGVEH\RQGWKHVHDVVRZKDWWKH\WKDWORYHWKLV land looseth.” 133 In both life and death, both as an indirect result of greed and by deliberate intention, merchant strangers were a drain on the resources of England. They were, in short, “no better than conduit pipes to empty the wealth and riches of this land into other foreign dominions.”134 Whether a merchant stranger came to England as, in the words of John Fabian, a transient “comer and goer” or as a settled “demoraunt and leger,” the end result was the same, as were the implications for the ways in which aliens were different.135 If a sojourner, it was because of a parasitic desire to breeze into the realm and extract its wealth, subverting law, custom and tradition in the process. If a life-long immigrant, the same air of impermanence abounded, ZLWKDOOFRQQHFWLRQVXOWLPDWHO\OHDGLQJDEURDGHLWKHUE\DI¿QLW\WRWKH³WULEH« LQ WKLV NLQJGRP´ RU WR ³NLQGUHG DQG IULHQGV EH\RQG WKH VHDV´136 In either case, E\LQQDWHJUHHGDQGWUDQVLHQFHDOLNHVWUDQJHUV³JUHDWO\LPSRYHULVKERWK&LW\DQG NLQJGRP´137 Their malevolence was obvious; belonging was not a possibility. Such statements stem, both implicitly and explicitly, from economic assumptions rooted in mercantilist theory. The complaints of Fabian and others draw a line between practices such as illicit retailing and the intentional removal of the nation’s ZHDOWKZKHWKHULQGLUHFWO\DVDWUDGHGH¿FLWRUGLUHFWO\LQKDUGFXUUHQF\VPXJJOHG RXWXQGHUFRYHURIGDUNQHVV$QGDVZLWKWKHFDVHRIDOLHQDUWLVDQVWKH\LPSO\ that such actions were deliberate rather than accidental, conducted by strangers ZKRDUHDERYHDOOFODQQLVK:KHWKHURFFXSLHGDVPDNHUVRUVHOOHUVLPPLJUDQWV¶ ³WULEH´RU³NLQGUHG´ZLOODOZD\VWUXPSZKDWHYHUFRQQHFWLRQVRUOR\DOWLHVPD\DULVH as part of life in a new land. Such ties persist after death, and as the next chapter will show, even despite English birth. Yet this “tribe” is featureless: complaints DJDLQVWVWUDQJHUVPDNHOLWWOHRUQRGLVWLQFWLRQEHWZHHQ)UHQFKDQG'XWFK&DWKROLF or Protestant. Aliens are loyal to each other and to their countries of origin; they LQKDELWWKHVSDWLDOPDUJLQVRIWKHFLW\LQZKDUYHVGRFNVRUVXEXUEVEH\RQGFLYLF FRQWURO$QGOLNHWKHLUKDXQWVDQGGZHOOLQJSODFHVWKH\UHPDLQLQWKHVKDGRZV Conclusion When the lord mayor wrote to the lord treasurer in 1580 concerning measures to SUHYHQWWKHSODJXHKLVLGHQWL¿FDWLRQRIVWUDQJHUVDVDFDXVHRILQIHFWLRQVSUDQJ 133 134 135 136 137

Huntington, EL 2516, fol. 1v (c. 1615). Huntington, EL 2446, fol. 1r (1615). BL, Lansdowne MSS 13, fol. 121r. Huntington, EL 2516, fol. 1v (c. 1615). Huntington, EL 2446, fol. 1r (1615).

“No Better Than Conduit Pipes”

85

from the same sources of anxiety as those concerning their ability to “overburden” WKHPDUNHWV138 The same was true of a complaint by “the generality of the nativeborn, being weavers of London” in 1635, who argued both that “the multitude of strangers causeth the raising of rents, enhancing the prices of victuals” and that they were “pestering … this city of London and suburbs thereof with many inmates inhabiting in small rooms to the increasing of contagious infection.”139 Such assertions, although relating to episodes of disease, were the product of day-to-day economic tensions, echoing petitions written over the course of several decades. Life in the early modern metropolis was never easy. Yet similar accusations against strangers persisted through catastrophe, strife and quotidian KDUGVKLS DOLNH ,Q JRRG WLPHV DQG EDG /RQGRQHUV FUHDWHG SRZHUIXO VWHUHRW\SHV WLHGWRVSHFL¿FRFFXSDWLRQDODQGHFRQRPLFWUDLWV For the authors of many anti-immigrant petitions, aliens’ vocational characteristics eclipsed national stereotypes. These carried with them a host of practices and intentions, from the production of shoddy goods in disordered households to the deliberate export of the nation’s specie. And all stemmed from a wilful malevolence, an inherent greed and stubborn separation from English society that intimated an inability ever to belong in the realm. Because of their voracious appetite for wealth, alien artisans divided large houses into many dwellings, each ¿OOHG ZLWK PXOWLSOH KHDGV RI KRXVHKROGV VHWWLQJ ZRPHQ DQG VHUYDQWV DW ZRUN Due to their clannishness, merchant strangers refused to live with English hosts as prescribed by law and custom, trading with impunity and undercutting the subjects of the realm. Continental immigrants thus both manufactured goods and conducted trade beyond the control of the English. In doing so, they exercised their ties with each other and their brethren abroad, eroding guild power, bringing in foreign wares and exporting the nation’s wealth. 6XFKSUDFWLFHVVLJQL¿HGPRUHWKDQMXVWDQHFRQRPLFHGJHWRXFKLQJXSRQWKH very nature of alien society. Statements about aliens’ occupational practices are impossible to untangle from broader articulations about marriage, family and religion. Strangers, one anonymous petitioner asserted, “combine themselves together.” They do so by both matrimony and occupation, for both are different VLGHVRIWKHVDPHFRLQ$OLHQV³PDUU\QRWWRRXUQDWLRQ>DQG@WKH\VHWWKHLURZQ SHRSOH DZRUN LQ DOO VRUWV RI WUDGHV´ 7KH (QJOLVK ZKHQ DEURDG LQWHJUDWH IXOO\ into their host country: “If an Englishman marry and dwell beyond the seas, in a generation or two they become the same nation in apparel, religion and affection to that people.” Yet strangers obstinately hold on to their own customs. Continuing “in the same tribe from generation to generation, they alter not their affection, their apparel nor conform themselves to our church’s government.” Issues of assimilation thus mingle with mercantilist concerns about the export of wealth, articulated almost in the same breath: aliens “alter not their language, they convey

138 139

CLRO, Remembrancia, vol. 1, fol. 18v. GL, MS 4647, fol. 153r; fol. 154v (1635).

Diversity and Difference in Early Modern London

86

DZD\RXUFRLQWKH\WDNHDZD\RXUODERUWKH\WDNHDZD\WKHUHE\WKHEUHDGRIWKH poor.” All are symptoms of wilful separation, greed, and malevolence.140 The accusation that strangers refused to assimilate called into question the Englishness of their London-born children. In 1627 the city’s weavers complained that “the sons of aliens or strangers are become bailiff, warden and assistant of RXU FRPSDQ\´ SRLQWLQJ WR LPPLJUDQW LQ¿OWUDWLRQ RI WKHLU JXLOG141 In doing so, they highlighted the contested nature of national identity in the metropolis, for the sons of strangers were also the English-born subjects of the Crown. With the establishment of long-term immigrant communities, it was no longer clear who, exactly, an alien was. The boundaries of difference had changed, and if the true subjects of the realm were to protect themselves from the threat of strangers, it was QHFHVVDU\WRFODULI\WKHQDWXUHRI(QJOLVKQHVV7KHTXHVWIRUWKLVFODUL¿FDWLRQZRXOG EULQJFLYLFDXWKRULWLHVLQWRFRQÀLFWQRWMXVWZLWKLPPLJUDQWVDQGWKHLUSURJHQ\EXW with English common law and, ultimately, the Crown.

140 141

Huntington, EL 2516, fol. 1r (c. 1615). GL, MS 4647, fol. 94r (1627).

Chapter 3

“English-born Reputed Strangers”: Birth and Descent in Theory and Practice

,Q-XO\DJURXSRIFORWKZRUNHUVDQGPHUFKDQWVWKH(QJOLVKERUQVRQVRI VWUDQJHUVSHWLWLRQHGWKHNLQJFRPSODLQLQJRIWD[DWLRQDWWKHKLJKHUUDWHWRZKLFK aliens were liable. Arguing that they “do truly strive for the good of the country,” the petitioners stated: >RXU@WUDGHEHLQJGHDGDQGRXUJDLQVVRVPDOO«ZHZRXOGEHJODGWRJHWEXW the one half of those rates which are demanded of us to maintain ourselves, our wives and families, and to save ourselves at the year’s end.1

:H GR QRW NQRZ ZKHWKHU WKH &URZQ VXEVHTXHQWO\ HDVHG WKH UDWH RI WD[DWLRQ However, it is clear that the authors of the petition had cause for complaint, not least because the Company of Dyers, by demanding payment of “a double tax” from the petitioners, sought “to suppress … men of their trade and living to their utter overthrow and undoing for ever.”2 The higher taxation of which the petitioners complained was due to the fact that their “fathers were born out of England.” The progeny of immigrants sought redress for discrimination. Although ³(QJOLVKERUQ´DQGKHQFHVXEMHFWVRIWKHNLQJZLWKDOOWKHULJKWVSULYLOHJHVDQG obligations that such birth entailed), the petitioners were also “denizens who are UHSXWHG VWUDQJHUV´ E\ /RQGRQ JXLOG DQG FLYLF RI¿FLDOV DQG ZHUH FRQVHTXHQWO\ accorded second-class status.3%\WKH¿UVWGHFDGHVRIWKHVHYHQWHHQWKFHQWXU\LQ London’s merchant circles it was no longer clear who was English. The children of aliens were caught between two competing notions of GLIIHUHQFHRQHGH¿QHGE\ELUWKDQGWKHRWKHUE\GHVFHQW$FFRUGLQJWRWKH FRXUWUXOLQJNQRZQDVCalvin’s CaseELUWKXQGHUWKHVRYHUHLJQW\RIWKHNLQJRI 1

PRO, SP 15/42, no. 56, fol. 91v. A previous version of this chapter appeared as “‘English-born Reputed Strangers’: Birth and Descent in Seventeenth-century London,” Journal of British Studies, 44/4 (2005): 728–53. © 2005 by North American Conference on British Studies. 2 The petitioners complained that “the merchant stranger is called to allow a rate DQG WKH G\HU WKDW LV (QJOLVKERUQ DQG GHQL]HQ DOWKRXJK UHSXWHG VWUDQJHUV LV OLNHZLVH WR allow a rate so that the paying of these burdensome and grievous taxes do bring other LQFRQYHQLHQFHVDQGGLVFRPPRGLWLHVZLWKLWDQGGRWKLQDNLQGDOVRDGRXEOHWD[´71$ SP 15/42, no. 56, fol. 91r. 3 Ibid.

Diversity and Difference in Early Modern London

88

(QJODQGPDGHRQHDVXEMHFW²LQGHHGWRDOOLQWHQWVDQGSXUSRVHV(QJOLVK4 Yet to the guild of their own trade these same men were strangers by virtue of descent.5 These two forms of difference denote divergence not just between Londoners of English birth, but between the City of London and central government. For the guild and civic authorities, Londoners of foreign descent were almost always GH¿QHGDVVWUDQJHUVRUDOLHQVLQFRQÀLFWVRYHUWD[DWLRQFXVWRPVGXWLHVDQGFLYLF citizenship. Although sometimes in agreement with the City, the institutions of FHQWUDOJRYHUQPHQW²ZKHWKHU&URZQ3ULY\&RXQFLORUWKHLQWHUUHJQXP&RXQFLO RI 6WDWH²ODUJHO\ VLGHG ZLWK LPPLJUDQWV DQG WKHLU RIIVSULQJ LQ UHMHFWLQJ VXFK characterizations. Such a pattern is in evidence throughout the seventeenth century, even under the Commonwealth when the issue of allegiance to the monarch no longer applied. By the second half of the century the issue of naturalization would become increasingly central to the immigration debate. And when civic authorities raised concerns about strangers becoming full-blown subjects, they did so by rearticulating their fears of the English-born children of immigrants. Both the naturalized and the offspring of strangers were different manifestations of an identical threat: that of people who were legally English but who, for some in the City at least, UHPDLQHGREYLRXVO\DOLHQ6XFKFRQÀDWLRQLVKLQWHGDWPXFKHDUOLHULQWKHFHQWXU\ The eponymous character of Henry Glapthorne’s 1635 comedy The Hollander is “a gallant naturalized Dutchman” named Sconce whose father was born in the Netherlands.6 In using the term “naturalized” to describe someone who appears to be of English birth, Glapthorne points to the contested status of Londoners of QRQ(QJOLVKSDUHQWDJHGXULQJWKH¿UVWKDOIRIWKHVHYHQWHHQWKFHQWXU\
Calvin v. Smith, English ReportsYROS&RXUWRI.LQJ¶V%HQFK  State Trials or a Collection of the Most Interesting Trials Prior to the Revolution of 1688, HG 6DPXHO 0DUFK 3KLOOLSSV  YROV /RQGRQ   YRO  S  6LU (GZDUG &RNH¶V report is included in 77 Eng. Rep. 377. Sir Francis Bacon’s speech can be found in 2 State Tr. 559. See also Scouloudi, Returns, pp. 1–2. For the text of Lord Ellesmere’s ruling in WKLVFDVHVHH/RXLV$.QDÀDLaw and Politics in Jacobean England: The Tracts of Lord Chancellor Ellesmere (Cambridge, 1977). 5 For attempts to introduce legislation against the children of strangers, see Pettegree, Foreign Protestant Communities, pp. 289–91. Elsewhere, Pettegree has argued that the JURZLQJQXPEHURILPPLJUDQWV¶FKLOGUHQERUQLQ(QJODQGE\WKH¿QDOGHFDGHVRI(OL]DEHWK¶V UHLJQ LQGLFDWHV WKH TXLFNHQLQJ ³SURFHVV RI SHDFHIXO DVVLPLODWLRQ´ 3HWWHJUHH ³7KLUW\ Years On,” p. 309. As we will see, however, their English status would remain contested throughout the seventeenth century. 6 Glapthorne, The Hollander, sig. A2v; sig. B4r. As A.J. Hoenselaars notes, Sconce’s GHVFULSWLRQ DORQJ ZLWK ³WKH UHIHUHQFH WR KLV IDWKHU ZKR ÀHG WR (QJODQG DIWHU ´ suggests that “he was conceived of as a second generation immigrant, born in England and so automatically granted English nationality”; Hoenselaars, Images of Englishmen and Foreigners, pp. 203–4.

“English-born Reputed Strangers”

89

%H\RQGWKHVWDJHSUDFWLFHUDWKHUWKDQSHUIRUPDQFHGH¿QHGDQGHQIRUFHGWKH meaning of both birth and descent. Actions in such diverse and prosaic areas as taxation, civic citizenship, guild membership and the manufacturing of cloth or the UH¿QLQJRIVXJDUFUHDWHGDQLGLRV\QFUDWLFcivic(QJOLVKQHVVGH¿QHGDORQJQDUURZ lines and very different from that which emerged from the actions of central government. The City’s motivation in excluding the children of strangers from belonging lay as much in the defense of tradition, precedent and the collection of UHYHQXHDVLQRYHUWDQWLSDWK\WRZDUGVWKRVHRIDOLHQEDFNJURXQG$QGOLNHWKH&LW\ the Crown’s motives were as much expedient as they were idealistic, rooted in the vicissitudes of patronage and the need to enhance the treasury. As with the City, WKH&URZQGH¿QHGEHORQJLQJLQWKHFRXUVHRILWVGD\WRGD\DIIDLUVUDWKHUWKDQE\ UHFRXUVHWROHJDOWKHRU\:KHQWKHNLQJDQG3ULY\&RXQFLOSUHVVXUHGWKH&LW\LQ support of the sons of strangers, they undermined the civic vision of descent as WKHGH¿QLQJPDUNHURI(QJOLVKQHVVZLWKWKHLURZQYLVLRQRIELUWKSODFHDVWKHNH\ to nationality. Both articulations, birth and descent, arose less from a conscious decision to narrow or widen the goalposts of belonging as from the need for money, the exigencies of patronage and the call of tradition. Yet the results were as powerful as any programmatic statement. The Legal Background Birth and Descent before Calvin’s Case While medieval law stressed both blood and place of birth as determinants of subjecthood, by the last decades of the sixteenth century London’s civic authorities GH¿QHG(QJOLVKQHVVRQWKHEDVLVRIRQH¶VOLQHDJHHQDFWLQJPHDVXUHVDJDLQVWWKH children and grandchildren of strangers. Although the legal legacy was ambiguous at best, those in power in the City chose to emphasize parental descent, regarding the English-born of foreign parentage as a threat and passing legislation to ensure their treatment as aliens. Similar measures also reached Parliament, although with little success. Pressure from the Crown and Privy Council, as in other matters relating to immigration, at times tempered zealous measures aimed at the children RI VWUDQJHUV7KXV E\ WKH ¿UVW GHFDGH RI WKH VHYHQWHHQWK FHQWXU\ (QJOLVKERUQ people of immigrant parentage were in an uncertain position in relation to both law and practice. And although the year 1608 would see the common law concerning EHORQJLQJ VHWWOHG LQ IDYRU RI ELUWK WKH LVVXH ZRXOG UHPDLQ DQ DUHQD RI FRQÀLFW beyond the courtroom for decades to come. The people of early modern England inherited mixed legal approaches to difference rooted in both common and civil law, stressing a mixture of soil and blood. Legal notions of nationality relying on place of birth had existed at least as

90

Diversity and Difference in Early Modern London

IDUEDFNDVWKHWKLUWHHQWKFHQWXU\7 Henry de Bracton based status as a subject on allegiance to the monarch as lord.8 As a result, a person born under allegiance to a IRUHLJQNLQJQHHGQRWEHKHDUGLQDQ(QJOLVKFRXUW as an Englishman is not heard, if he implead any one concerning lands and tenements in France, so ought not a native of France and a born alien who is of IHDOW\WRWKHNLQJRI)UDQFHWREHKHDUGLIKHLPSOHDGVDQ\RQHLQ(QJODQG9

,Q WKLV VHQVH DOOHJLDQFH ZDV EDVHG RQ WHUULWRU\²QRW E\ YLUWXH RI WKH ODQG RQH owned, but because of the monarch in whose land one was born.10 This form RI EHORQJLQJ KDG ORQJ FRH[LVWHG LQ ODZ ZLWK D QRWLRQ RI QDWLRQDOLW\ GH¿QHG E\ blood. The former, jus soli, stemmed from common law, the latter, jus sanguinis (literally “law of blood”), from civil law.11 Yet despite their origins in disparate legal traditions, both carried weight in England prior to the seventeenth century. The 1351 statute of De Natis Ultra Mare provides a classic example of the two WUDGLWLRQVDWZRUNVLPXOWDQHRXVO\ZLWKLQWKHVDPHODZ12 The law guaranteed the subjecthood of a child born out of England if the child’s parents were themselves bound by allegiance to the English monarch.13 It stated: all children inheritors, which from henceforth shall be born without the ligeance RIWKHNLQJZKRVHIDWKHUVDQGPRWKHUVDWWKHWLPHRIWKHLUELUWKEHDQGVKDOOEH DWWKHIDLWKDQGOLJHDQFHRIWKH.LQJRI(QJODQGVKDOOKDYHDQGVKDOOHQMR\WKH VDPHEHQH¿WVDQGDGYDQWDJHV«DVRWKHULQKHULWRUVDIRUHVDLGLQWLPHWRFRPH14 7 For a summary of nationality law in England prior to the thirteenth century, see Clive Parry, Nationality and Citizenship Laws of the Commonwealth and of the Republic of Ireland (London, 1957), pp. 28–30. 8 Polly J. Price, “Natural Law and Birthright Citizenship in Calvin’s Case (1608),” Yale Journal of Law and the Humanities, 9/73 (1997): 92. 9 Henrici De Bracton, Legibus et Consuetudinibus Angliae, cited in Price, “Natural Law,” p. 92. 10 Price, “Natural Law,” p. 92. Bracton was cited extensively in Calvin’s Case. See ibid., p. 92 n. 105. 3ULFHDOVRQRWHVWKDWVRPHKLVWRULDQV³¿QGHYLGHQFHRIWKLVWHUULWRULDO basis as early as 1290 in the case of Elyas de Rabayn, in which the rule was assumed to be WKDWDOOSHUVRQVERUQRQ(QJOLVKVRLOZHUHWKH.LQJ¶VVXEMHFWV´LELGSQ+RZHYHU &OLYH3DUU\WDNHVLVVXHZLWKWKHFRQFOXVLRQWKDWWKH5DED\QFDVHLPSOLHVWKHGRPLQDQFHRI jus soli. Rather than implying that “birth in England alone made a subject,” he argues that the case merely meant that “one born out of England was not a subject”; Parry, Nationality and Citizenship, p. 31. 11 Price, “Natural Law,” pp. 77–8. 12 25 Edward III Stat. 1. See J. Mervyn Jones, British Nationality Law and Practice (Oxford, 1947), p. 66. 13 Price, “Natural Law,” p. 77. 14 Cited in Jones, British Nationality, p. 66. The statute contained the added caveat that the mothers of the children concerned must “pass the sea by the license and wills of

“English-born Reputed Strangers”

91

The statute propounded a mixture of the two forms of belonging for, as Polly Price notes, it “permitted children to acquire subject status by birth according to descent.”15 A child could not acquire Englishness by virtue of blood without WKH EHQH¿W RI SDUHQWV ERUQ XQGHU WKH DOOHJLDQFH RI WKH (QJOLVK &URZQ ,Q WKLV sense the law intertwined two forms of belonging. In 1368 a further statute directly DGGUHVVHG WKH PDWWHU RI ELUWK ZLWKLQ WKH NLQJ¶V WHUULWRULHV EH\RQG (QJODQG LQ D manner that foreshadowed Calvin’s Case.16 The law asserted the subjecthood of anyone born in the sovereign’s non-English territories and, in this sense, seems to KDYH¿UPO\VHWWOHGWKHLVVXHRIQDWLRQDOLW\LQIDYRURIjus soli. Yet both the status DQG WKH LPSOLFDWLRQV RI WKH  ODZ UHPDLQHG LQ GRXEW$OWKRXJK ERWK &RNH and Bacon were to cite it in their deliberations of 1608, Calvin’s Case proved, in FRPPRQODZDWOHDVWWREHWKHQHFHVVDU\DQGGH¿QLWLYHUXOLQJ17 /HJDOWUDGLWLRQWKHQUHFRJQL]HGWZRGLIIHUHQWFULWHULDIRUGH¿QLQJQDWLRQDOLW\ Yet by the late sixteenth century the practice of acceptance as English and exclusion DVDOLHQZDVJXLGHGOHVVE\WKHOHWWHURIWKHODZ²FRQWUDGLFWRU\DVLWZDV²WKDQ by the exigencies of tradition, privilege, patronage and fear. Anxieties concerning WKH(QJOLVKERUQFKLOGUHQRIVWUDQJHUVZHUHULIHWDNLQJWKHLUFXHPRUHIURPZLGHU attitudes towards aliens than from abstract legal principles such as jus sanguinis. Just as early modern civic authorities consistently sided against immigrants, so they tended towards the exclusion of their English-born children, seeing them as part of the wider alien community rather than as subjects of the realm. Petitioners DQG FLYLF JRYHUQRUV DOLNH DSSOLHG WKH IHDUV DQG VWHUHRW\SHV RI VWUDQJHUV DJDLQVW WKHLU RIIVSULQJ HYHQ LI OLNH +HQU\ *ODSWKRUQH¶V 6FRQFH VXFK /RQGRQERUQ progeny rejected the foreign tongue of their forefathers.18 'XULQJWKH¿QDOGHFDGHVRIWKHVL[WHHQWKFHQWXU\ERWKFLYLFDQGSDUOLDPHQWDU\ OHJLVODWRUVWRRNDQXPEHURIPHDVXUHVWRHQVXUHWKHDOLHQVWDWXVRIWKHFKLOGUHQRI VWUDQJHUV7KHPRVWIDUUHDFKLQJRIWKHVHWRRNSODFHLQZKHQ/RQGRQ¶V&RXUW of Common Council passed an Act restricting the access of the sons of strangers to apprenticeship. The potential consequences of this legislation for strangers were their husbands”; ibid. 15 Price, “Natural Law,” p. 77 n. 18; my emphasis. 16 42 Edward III c. 10. See Jones, British Nationality, p. 66. 17 %DFRQ UHIHUULQJ WR WKLV SUHFHGHQW DVNHG ³:KDW FRXOG EH PRUH SODLQ"´ &RNH argued that it also applied to dependent territories with the status such as that of Wales prior to direct annexation. See Jones, British Nationality, pp. 66–7 n. 4. J. Mervyn Jones explains away the apparent paradox of the necessity of Calvin’s Case after the 1368 statute E\DUJXLQJWKDW³WKHWUHDWPHQWRIVWDWXWHVLQWKLVPDQQHUZDVQRWNQRZQDWWKHWLPHCalvin’s Case was decided”; ibid., p. 66 n. 4. Clive Parry, however, has suggested that the 1368 pronouncement was not, in fact, a true statute, but rather “a memorandum of the statute of 1351 and of the common law”; Parry, Nationality and Citizenship, p. 33. 18 Glapthorne’s eponymous Hollander eschewed both the Dutch language and his “Dutch blood … guilty of bacon grease and potted butter”; Glapthorne, Hollander, sig. E1v, quoted in Hoenselaars, Images of Englishmen and Foreigners, p. 204.

92

Diversity and Difference in Early Modern London

severe: its wording denied even the children of denizens the right to train within a guild.19 The language of the Act included what Laura Hunt Yungblut has aptly characterized as “a virtual ‘grandfather clause.’”207KHELOOSURKLELWHGWKHWDNLQJ as apprentice: any person whose father being not the child of an Englishman born is not or shall not be born within the Queen’s dominions or … whose father hath been is or shall be of the allegiance of any foreign prince or state.21

%RWKELUWKDQGGHVFHQWZHUHWKXVSUHVHQWDVPDUNHUVRIEHORQJLQJWKHIRUPHU because birth in England granted legitimacy to the grandfather in question, and the latter because it was one’s descent from the grandfather that conferred Englishness. However, the Common Council’s bill, by excluding strangers’ progeny from apprenticeship, ultimately emphasized the importance of descent over birth, justifying this emphasis in terms of the immediacy of the threat posed by those of alien parentage.22 The offspring of immigrants, the Council argued, remained alien in allegiance, even if they happened to have been born under the sovereignty of an (QJOLVKTXHHQ7KHELOOVWDWHGWKDW³VXFKFKLOGUHQERUQRI«VWUDQJHUV>KDYH@DQG GRUHWDLQDQLQFOLQDWLRQDQGNLQGDIIHFWLRQWRWKHFRXQWULHVRIWKHLUSDUHQWV´3DUWO\ because of this “natural disposition” and partly because of “the examples of their fathers whose steps they follow,” many had shown themselves to be “very hurtful members to the common weal of this realm and specially to this honorable city.”23 The threat posed by the children of strangers was thus an extension of the inability of aliens to belong.24 19 Lien Luu, “Natural-born Versus Stranger-born Subjects,” p. 62. As Andrew Pettegree notes, denizens didn’t remain silent on the matter: the stranger churches pressed for parliamentary legislation against the Common Council’s act, though without success; see Pettegree, Foreign Protestant Communities, p. 289. 20 Yungblut, Strangers, p. 105. 21 Cited in ibid. Yungblut quotes in the original spelling, which I have modernized. 22 It should also be noted that despite the 1351 statute of De Natis Ultra Mare the Elizabethan Parliament passed numerous naturalization bills for the children of English people born abroad. See, for example, 18 Eliz. c. 26, “An Act that the Lady Jana Sibilla wife to the Lord Graye of Wilton born beyond the sea, may be deemed and reputed as mere English”; Statutes of the Realm, vol. 4, part 1, p. xxxiv; 18 Eliz. c. 35, “An other Act that certain persons born beyond the sea may be deemed and reputed as mere English …. Touching her Majesty’s faithful subjects in Antwerp married with strangers to have their children naturalized”; ibid., p. xxxiv; 31 Eliz. (1588–89), “An Act for the naturalizing RI-R\FHWKHGDXJKWHURI5DXIH(ON\QJHQWDQGZLIHRI5LFKDUG/DPEHUWPHUFKDQWERUQ beyond the seas”; ibid., p. xli. 23 Cited in Yungblut, Strangers, p. 105. 24 Although not formally rescinded, the Common Council’s 1574 Act seems to have been enforced only sporadically; see Chapter 1 above, pp. 41–2. It is referred to in the cases of John Verre (1582) and Lewes Sohere (1611) below, pp. 109 and 100–101.

“English-born Reputed Strangers”

93

The language of the bill is borne out in wider complaints against the children of VWUDQJHUVZKLFKSODFHGWKHLVVXHRILPPLJUDQWRIIVSULQJ¿UPO\ZLWKLQWKHFRQWH[W of the ultimate alien goal of subverting the realm. In at least one case fear also centered upon the threat posed by the potential Englishness of the English-born. In 1576 the Court of Aldermen heard complaint that strangers were attempting to exploit the implications of jus soli in order to gain the rights of the realm’s natural subjects. The complaint alleged “that sundry persons being strangers born out of this realm” had “of purpose brought over their wives from the parts beyond the seas to be delivered with child within” London and elsewhere, in order “to win to those children the liberty that other English men do enjoy.” The potential English status of these illicit children posed a threat, one that would inevitably lead to “the manifest defrauding of the queen’s most excellent Majesty in all her customs, subsidies and other duties.”25 Yet this was a counterfeit Englishness, fraudulently attained by smuggling pregnant women into the country from abroad. In the eyes of the complainants, such children would clearly remain aliens by virtue of their parentage. 3DUOLDPHQW DOVR WRRN PHDVXUHV DJDLQVW WKH FKLOGUHQ RI VWUDQJHUV GXULQJ WKH following decades, although with limited success. In 1581 the Commons heard a bill that attempted to place restrictions on the children of non-denizen strangers. The legislation proposed that “children of aliens, not being denizens, and born in England, should not be accounted English.” It made it to the Lords, where it died without being passed.26 In 1589 legislators added a provision to the Subsidy Acts that declared that “no child of an alien … to whom land or goods had been FRQVLJQHGWRDYRLGSD\PHQWRIGRXEOHUDWHVZDVWREHQH¿WIURPWKHDUUDQJHPHQW´ Instead, such property “was liable for payment at the higher rate of taxation to which an alien was subject.”27 And in 1604 the Commons debated a measure to pin down the status of the English-born progeny of aliens, granting those “of µWKH¿UVWELUWKRUGHVFHQWRQO\¶DQGERUQZLWKLQWKHUHDOPWKHOLPLWHGSRVLWLRQRID

25 CLRO, Rep. 19, fol. 38v. This example is also cited in Luu, Immigrants, p. 167. Luu provides other examples of civic rejection of the Englishness of the children of strangers, esp. in ibid., pp. 166–7. 26 Journal of the House of Commons, vol. 1, p. 118. For the bill’s passage through the Commons, see ibid., pp. 118–23, 127. For the Lords, see Journal of the House of Lords, vol. 2, pp. 34, 37–8. This is also discussed in Pettegree, Foreign Protestant Communities, p. 290. 27 Scouloudi, Returns, p. 2. Indeed, a previous effort in this direction had been made in February 1576, when Parliament heard a “Bill touching children being born in England, their parents being strangers”; Journal of the House of Commons, vol. 1, p. 107. According to Pettegree, this “sought to force strangers’ children born in England to pay the alien rate of subsidy”; it died on second reading; see Pettegree, Foreign Protestant Communities, p. 290. For the rights granted by denizen status, see Chapter 1 above, pp. 49–50.

Diversity and Difference in Early Modern London

94

‘denizen.’”28 The House rejected the bill on its third reading.29 Andrew Pettegree has pointed to the failure of such legislation as a sign that strangers had “powerful protectors,” as well as an indication of the general reluctance of the government to engage in legal innovation in the name of popular prejudice.30 Yet in so far as the debate centered around a dispute over who strangers actually were, it was also a FRQÀLFWRYHUEDVLFPDUNHUVRI(QJOLVKQHVV %\WKH¿UVWGHFDGHRIWKHVHYHQWHHQWKFHQWXU\WKHQWKHFKLOGUHQRIVWUDQJHUV remained in an ambiguous position. Both civic and parliamentary legislators had made numerous attempts, some quite draconian, to exclude them from status as (QJOLVKZKLOHDWWKHVDPHWLPHDFNQRZOHGJLQJWKDWYHU\(QJOLVKQHVVDVDWKUHDW The most severe legislation had failed, though not without repeated attempts at passage. Very real disabilities existed in the realm of taxation. In the letter of the law those of English birth but foreign descent had an uncertain status, neither fully English nor fully alien nor, as the abortive legislation of 1604 shows, able to claim the limited position of denizen. Yet four years later an unrelated court case concerning the rights of a Scottish-born child to inherit land would provide the children of strangers with powerful ammunition with which to assert their (QJOLVKQHVV7KHLVVXHGZRXOG¿QDOO\EHVHWWOHGLQFRPPRQODZWKRXJKQRWDV we will see, in practice. Calvin’s Case and Belonging by Birth Calvin’s Case revolved around whether Robert Calvin, a Scottish-born three-yearold child, could inherit lands in England.31 The ruling decreed that Scots born DIWHUWKHDFFHVVLRQRI-DPHV9,WRWKHWKURQHRI(QJODQG²WKHVRFDOOHGpostnati² were effectively English subjects. The antenati, born prior to the union of the two crowns, retained the alien status previously accorded to all Scots. Calvin’s Case not only applied to those north of the border; from then on, all nationality was based on allegiance to the sovereign on whose territory one was born.32 Such allegiance was bestowed at birth, cementing a subject–monarch bond that 28

Scouloudi, Returns, p. 2. 7KHELOOUHFHLYHGLWV¿UVWUHDGLQJRQ April, was read once more on 3 May, and ¿QDOO\ UHMHFWHG ³XSRQ WKH TXHVWLRQ RI LQJURVVLQJ´ RQ  0D\ VHH Journal of the House of Commons, vol. 1, p. 181; ibid., p. 197; ibid.S/LHQ/XXLQFRUUHFWO\OLVWVWKH¿UVW reading of 21 April as decisive (Luu, Immigrants and the Industries of London, pp. 167, 173 n. 139), while Irene Scouloudi refers to the bill’s failure; see Scouloudi, Returns, p. 2. 30 Pettegree, Foreign Protestant Communities, p. 290. 31 Or, more precisely, “if Richard Smith, and Nicholas Smith unjustly, and without judgment, did disseise Rob. Calvin, gent. of his freehold in … Haggard, otherwise Haggerton, otherwise Aggerston, in the parish of St. Leonard in Shoreditch”; 77 Eng. Rep. 378. The FDVHEHJDQLQ.LQJ¶V%HQFKZLWKDVLPXOWDQHRXVVXLWLQ&KDQFHU\7KH¿QDOGHFLVLRQZDV reached in the Court of Exchequer Chamber; see Jones, British Nationality, p. 30. 32 Scouloudi, Returns, p. 1; Statt, Foreigners and Englishmen, pp. 32–3. 29

“English-born Reputed Strangers”

95

FRXOGQHYHUEHEURNHQ³DQLQFLGHQWLQVHSDUDEOHWRHYHU\VXEMHFW´33 And because nationality followed from the obligation to one’s sovereign, anyone born under the UHLJQRIDNLQJRI(QJODQGZDVLQHIIHFW(QJOLVKHYHQLIWKDWELUWKWRRNSODFHLQWKH NLQJ¶VQRQ(QJOLVKWHUULWRULHV34 Prior to James’s accession Scots were aliens. However, at least one case allowed perception and practice to grant effective English status. In 1571, “W.D.,” a Scot accused of raping a seven-year-old girl, demanded a jury composed of a mixture RIDOLHQVDQGVXEMHFWV7KHFRXUW¶VUHVSRQVHVKRZVKRZ6FRWWLVKODFNRIGLIIHUHQFH might be grounds for equal treatment. As Marianne Constable has shown, strangers had long been entitled to a mixed jury, a practice that was gradually undermined E\WKHZULWWHQFRGL¿FDWLRQRIWKHODZ35 In this case, the justices rejected demands for such a jury on three grounds. Firstly, they argued, “a Scot was never here DFFRXQWHGDQDOLHQEXWUDWKHUDVXEMHFW´DVWDWHPHQWWKDWLVUHPDUNDEOHLQOLJKWRI the weight subsequently granted to Calvin’s Case). Secondly, Scots were simply not alien enough, the Scottish language being “not a strange tongue, but mere English.”36 The third reason for refusal rested with a technicality, the timing of the defendant’s request for a mixed jury. Only this latter reason became precedent. Although Scots were aliens under the law, the justices in this case had granted W.D. effective subjecthood.37 :KHQ5REHUW&DOYLQ¶VLQKHULWDQFHFDVHFDPHEHIRUHWKH&RXUWRI.LQJ¶V%HQFK in 1608 the status of Scots in England had yet to be resolved.38 Following the accession of James VI of Scotland to the throne of England in 1603, legislators DWWHPSWHGWRVHWWOHWKHSDUDGR[HVUHVXOWLQJIURPWKHH[LVWHQFHRIWZRNLQJGRPV XQGHU WKH VRYHUHLJQW\ RI RQH NLQJ$ MRLQW VHVVLRQ RI FRPPLVVLRQHUV IURP WKH two realms decided that Scots born after James’s accession to the English throne should be counted as English (and English postnati as Scots). They proposed that “the common law of both nations should be declared to be, that all born in HLWKHUQDWLRQVLWKHQFH+LV0DMHVW\ZDVNLQJRIERWKZHUHPXWXDOO\QDWXUDOL]HGLQ both.”39 Meanwhile, the Scots antenati ZHUHWRUHFHLYHEODQNHWQDWXUDOL]DWLRQE\ 33

The Digest: Annotated British, Commonwealth and European Cases (52 vols., London, 1971–93), vol. 11, part 2, p. 558. 34 The implications of Calvin’s Case are far-reaching and apply to many areas of English law. These include the inability to lose one’s status as a natural-born subject (ibid., vol. 7, part 2, p. 8), the rights of aliens to acquire and hold goods within the realm LELGS WKHNLQJ¶VSRZHUWRJUDQWGHQL]HQVWDWXVDWZLOOLELGS DQGWKHQDWXUHDQG rights of the peerage (ibid., vol. 37, part 1, p. 3). 35 Constable, Law of the Other. 36 W.D.’s Case, cited in ibid., pp. 110–11. 37 Ibid., pp. 110–11. 38 7KH FDVH LWVHOI EHJDQ LQ .LQJ¶V %HQFK ZLWK D VLPXOWDQHRXV VXLW LQ &KDQFHU\ 7KH ¿QDO GHFLVLRQ ZDV UHDFKHG LQ WKH &RXUW RI ([FKHTXHU &KDPEHU VHH -RQHV British Nationality, p. 30. 39 Ibid., p. 29.

Diversity and Difference in Early Modern London

96

Parliament.40 However, two bills drawn up to this effect failed.41 Thus, when Robert Calvin’s inheritance case came to court, the status of both post- and antenati Scots was still undetermined. The ruling by the lord chancellor and 12 judges accepted Calvin’s status as de facto English, a decision that made all postnati VXEMHFWV LQ ERWK NLQJGRPV The antenatiZHUHQRWVROXFN\WKHUXOLQJGHFUHHLQJWKDWEHFDXVHWKH\ZHUHERUQ SULRUWR-DPHV9,¶VDFFHVVLRQWRWKH(QJOLVKWKURQH²DQGWKXVKDGQRWEHHQERUQ DV VXEMHFWV RI DQ (QJOLVK NLQJ²WKH\ ZHUH WR EH YLHZHG DV DOLHQV VRXWK RI WKH border (or north, if English).42 For the children of strangers born in England, the UXOLQJZDVDQDI¿UPDWLRQRIjus soliWKH\ZHUHOLNH5REHUW&DOYLQERUQLQWRDQ indissoluble subject–monarch bond, owing allegiance to the sovereign of the land of their birth. The postnati Scots, and by extension the children of immigrants, had acquired a form of subjecthood granted, according to Chief Justice Sir Edward &RNHE\ligeantia naturalis, “nature or birthright.”43 6XFK DOOHJLDQFH KLQJHG RQ WKH TXHVWLRQ RI WKH VHSDUDWLRQ RI WKH NLQJ¶V WZR ERGLHV ,I LQ VKRUW LW ZHUH SRVVLEOH WR RIIHU IHDOW\ WR WKH NLQJ¶V SROLWLFDO ERG\ separately from his natural body, birth under James’s Scottish body politic would QRWHQWDLODOOHJLDQFHWRKLPLQKLVFDSDFLW\DVWKH(QJOLVKNLQJ,IRQWKHRWKHU hand, the two were inseparable, allegiance to James VI of Scotland was allegiance to James I of England.446LU)UDQFLV%DFRQDVFRXQVHOIRU5REHUW&DOYLQMXVWL¿HG the latter view in his speech to the Exchequer Chamber, arguing that: >WKHNLQJ¶V@WZRFDSDFLWLHVDUHLQQRVRUWFRQIRXQGHG«>$@VKLVFDSDFLW\SROLWLF ZRUNHWKVRXSRQKLVQDWXUDOSHUVRQ«VRe conversoKLVQDWXUDOERG\ZRUNHWK so upon his politic, as the corporation of the crown utterly differeth from all other corporations within the realm.45

40

Parry, Nationality and Citizenship, pp. 40–41. Price, “Natural Law,” p. 97. 42 Jones, British Nationality, p. 30. See CSP Dom., James I, vol. 8 (1603–10), p. 428, for Justice Yelverton’s speech. Yelverton was of the opinion that “since the union of the .LQJGRPVXQGHURQH6RYHUHLJQD6FRWFKPDQLVQRWDQDOLHQ´ 43 7KLVZDVDFFRUGLQJWR&RNHRQHRIIRXUNLQGVRISRVVLEOHDOOHJLDQFH7KHRWKHU three were ligeantia acquisitia (by acquisition, such as denization), ligeantia localis (“when DQDOLHQWKDWLVLQDPLW\FRPHWKWR(QJODQGKHLVZLWKLQWKH.LQJ¶VSURWHFWLRQWKHUHIRUH VR ORQJ DV KH LV KHUH KH RZHWK XQWR WKH .LQJ D ORFDO REHGLHQFH RU OLJHDQFH´  DQG OHJDO obedience (“because the municipal laws of this realm have prescribed the order and form of LW´ VHH&RNH(QJ5HSDOVRFLWHGLQ-RQHVBritish Nationality, p. 34. 44 Price, “Natural Law,” p. 108. For the classic elaboration of the medieval theory of the NLQJ¶VWZRERGLHVVHH(UQVW.DQWRURZLF]The King’s Two Bodies (Princeton, NJ, 1957). 45 State Trials, vol. 2, col. 597. 41

“English-born Reputed Strangers”

97

$OOHJLDQFHWRWKH6FRWWLVKNLQJHQWDLOHGWKHVDPHWRWKHUXOHURI(QJODQG46 Lord Chancellor Ellesmere echoed this position, arguing that a bond as profound as fealty was between the persons of subject and monarch, not between the subject and the body politic. Allegiance, he argued, “bindeth the soul and conscience of HYHU\VXEMHFWVHYHUDOO\DQGUHVSHFWLYHO\WREHIDLWKIXOWRWKH.LQJ´,WFRXOGQRWEH reduced to a trivial abstraction: >$@VDVRXORUFRQVFLHQFHFDQQRWEHIUDPHGE\SROLF\VRIDLWKDQGDOOHJLDQFH cannot be framed by policy, nor put into a body politic. An oath must be sworn by a natural body; homage and fealty must be done by a natural body, a politic body cannot do it.47

To argue otherwise was, for Ellesmere, to court absurdity: >&@DQ DQ\ KXPDQ SROLF\ GLYLGH WKLV RQH .LQJ DQG PDNH KLP WZR .LQJV" « >&@DQDQ\PDQEHDWUXHVXEMHFWWR.LQJ-DPHVDV.LQJRI(QJODQGDQGDWUDLWRU RUUHEHOWR.LQJ-DPHVDV.LQJRI6FRWODQG"48

6LU (GZDUG &RNH LQ HPSKDVL]LQJ WKH LPSRUWDQFH RI ligeantia naturalis, reiterated Bacon’s argument about who that allegiance was due to, while adding the crucial ingredient of the momentRIELUWKDVDGHFLGLQJIDFWRU7KHNLQJ¶VQDWXUDO body was not separable from his body politic, and therefore natural allegiance to James VI, acquired at birth, was identical to natural allegiance to James I. This ZDVEHFDXVH³LWZDVGXHWRWKHQDWXUDOSHUVRQRIWKH.LQJ´DQGQRW³WRWKHSROLWLF FDSDFLW\RQO\WKDWLVWRKLV&URZQRUNLQJGRPGLVWLQFWIURPKLVQDWXUDOFDSDFLW\´ 7KHVXEMHFWRZHGIHDOW\WRWKHNLQJ¶VQDWXUDOERG\ZKLFKFRXOGRIFRXUVHGLH
Price, “Natural Law,” p. 108. /RUG&KDQFHOORU(OOHVPHUHFLWHGLQ.QDÀDLaw and Politics, p. 76. Ibid. 77 Eng. Rep. 389. Ibid., 381. Ibid., 394.

Diversity and Difference in Early Modern London

98

time of one’s birth, the point of entry into the subject–monarch bond. The ruler of the antenatiKDGQRWEHHQNLQJRI(QJODQGZKHQWKH\ZHUHERUQDQGWKH\ZHUH therefore aliens in England, even if their children were de jure English.52 Calvin’s Case secured the importance of jus soli in English common law. ,QGHHGWKHUHVHHPVWRKDYHEHHQYHU\OLWWOHOHJDOFRQÀLFWRYHUWKLVSRLQWIRUWKH rest of the seventeenth century.53 The use of the case as precedent, as well as any challenges to its implications, centered upon the issue of the rights of people born abroad of at least one English parent to inherit lands within the realm. These cases revolved around the question of jus sanguinis as used in the 1351 statute of De Natis Ultra Mare: belonging on the basis of descent had not gone away, but it did appear in law only in relation to the children of English men and women born in foreign realms. In 1627 R. v. EatonDI¿UPHGWKHULJKWRIWKHIRUHLJQERUQFKLOGRI only one English parent to inherit. Bacon v. Bacon (1641) combined jus sanguinis with an emphasis upon the importance of allegiance, by arguing that a child born abroad of an English merchant could inherit, although the mother was an alien and the merchant father, at the time of birth, was deceased. In this case the right to inherit stemmed from the fact that the wife remained “sub poteste viri, and TXDVLXQGHUWKH$OOHJLDQFHRIRXU.LQJ´Collingwood v. Pace (1664) addressed the inheritance of the Earl of Holderness, a case that dealt with questions of the Scots antenati and the implications for inheritance of the precise wording of acts of naturalization.54 However, none of these cases presented a challenge to the legal (QJOLVKQHVVRIWKRVHERUQXQGHUWKHDOOHJLDQFHRIDQ(QJOLVKPRQDUFKDVGH¿QHG by Calvin’s Case.55 52

See also Price, “Natural Law,” pp. 113–16. Many cases beyond the scope of this study have cited Calvin v. Smith; see, for example: Low v. Routledge (1865; Digest, vol. 7, part 2, p. 25); Rodriguez v. Speyer (1918; ibid.); Campbell v. Hall (1774; ibid., vol. 8, part 2, p. 392); Ruding v. Smith (1821; ibid., p. 392); Lyons Corpn. v. East India Co. (1836; ibid., vol. 8, part 2, p. 392); China Navigation Co. v. Attorney-General (1932; ibid., vol. 11, part 2, p. 559); Brunswick v. King of Hanover (1844; ibid., vol. 37, part 1, p. 3). 54 Lord Hale also argued, as part of Collingwood v. Pace, that children born abroad to an English woman and an alien husband should be considered aliens, again because the wife was “sub poteste viri”; Parry, Nationality and Citizenship, p. 45. 55 7KHVH H[DPSOHV DUH WDNHQ IURP LELG SS ± 3DUU\ QRWHV WKDW RQH DVSHFW RI Collingwood v. Pace was of relevance to the English-born children of aliens. In his ruling, +DOHGLVVHQWHGIURPDSUHYLRXVRSLQLRQRI&RNHWKDW³LIDQDOLHQKDYHWZRVRQVERUQLQ England, and one die, without issue, the other shall not inherit him.” This opinion had been based on the notion that “descent cannot be traced through an alien for the purposes RILQKHULWDQFH´,QWKLVVHQVH&RNH¶VRSLQLRQZDVLQIDFWDGLVDELOLW\WKDWUHVXOWHGIURP WKH DOLHQ IDWKHU²ZKR FRXOG QRW EHVWRZ LQKHULWDQFH²UDWKHU WKDQ WKH (QJOLVKERUQ VRQV WKH (QJOLVKQHVV RI ZKRP ZDV QRW LQ TXHVWLRQ +DOH KRZHYHU GLIIHUHG IURP &RNH on collateral inheritance. As Parry notes, the situation was cleared up by the statute of    :LOO  F  ³ZKLFK VZHSW DZD\ WKH REMHFWLRQ WR PDNLQJ WLWOH RQ WKH EDVLV RI alien descent for all purposes”; Parry, Nationality and Citizenship, p. 45. See ibid., 53

“English-born Reputed Strangers”

99

Calvin’s CaseGH¿QHGWKH(QJOLVKERUQFKLOGUHQRIVWUDQJHUVDVVXEMHFWVRIWKH &URZQRZLQJDOOHJLDQFHWRWKHNLQJRI(QJODQGDVDUHVXOWRIQDWXUDOODZ7KH\ OLNH5REHUW&DOYLQKDGHQWHUHGLQWRDQLQGLVVROXEOHVXEMHFW±PRQDUFKERQGZLWK WKHLU¿UVWEUHDWKRIDLU
pp. 51–2, for more on inheritance from an alien father, and the implications of birth before and after one’s parent’s naturalization and denization. The legacy of Calvin’s Case by the WLPHDQRWKHUIRUHLJQVRYHUHLJQWRRNWKH(QJOLVK&URZQLVGLI¿FXOWWRMXGJH3DUU\VXJJHVWV that the duration of the Anglo-Dutch union, following the accession of William and Mary in 1689, was too short for any Dutch claims to English subjecthood to develop: most Dutch remained antenati, and thus aliens; see ibid., pp. 46–7. He also notes that, if anything, the case was strangely absent from public discourse. However, Calvin’s Case itself came only ¿YH\HDUVDIWHUWKHDFFHVVLRQRI-DPHVDQG:LOOLDPUHLJQHGXQWLOSOHQW\RIWLPHIRU a precocious postnati to claim subjecthood (although there is no sign that this actually KDSSHQHG -RQHVPHUHO\VWDWHV³>S@UHVXPDEO\LQWKHWLPHRI:LOOLDP,,,'XWFKPHQZHUH British subjects”; Jones, British Nationality, p. 31 n. 1. When the crowns of Hanover and Britain were united in 1717, Hanoverians were British subjects according to Calvin’s Case (again, presumably postnati only). However, when William IV died and the crowns split, Hanoverians lost their status as British subjects; see ibid., pp. 31 n. 1, 59–60.

Diversity and Difference in Early Modern London

100

Exclusion by Descent in the City Civic authorities practiced a notion of belonging grounded in descent by treating the English-born children of strangers as if they were themselves aliens. They did so by exclusion in three areas, all traditional arenas for prohibitions against immigrants. The freedom of the City was, as we have seen, in many ways the GH¿QLQJ PDUNHU RI EHORQJLQJ LQ HDUO\ PRGHUQ /RQGRQ $FFHVV E\ DOLHQV ZDV limited, and this pattern continued for their English-born children.56 Both civic and JXLOGRI¿FLDOVDOVRVRXJKWWRGHQ\WKHVRQVRIVWUDQJHUVDFFHVVWRDSSUHQWLFHVKLS WKHORZHVWUXQJRQWKHYRFDWLRQDOODGGHUIRULIIUHHGRPZDVWKHGH¿QLQJPDUNHU of belonging, so apprenticeship was its gateway. The other prime area of exclusion ZDVWD[DWLRQSDUWLFXODUO\LQWKHIRUPRIFXVWRPVGXWLHVVXFKDVSDFNDJHVFDYDJH and bailage.57 Aliens were liable for special payments, to which the authorities also subjected their English-born children, despite the protestations of the latter. In these arenas, civic authorities treated English-born subjects of alien descent as de facto strangers. These practices bolstered a form of difference grounded in descent. Freedom and Occupational Practice Just as civic authorities had, since the sixteenth century, moved to exclude the children of strangers from a variety of roles by the passage of prohibitive legislation, VRWKH\KDGORQJWDNHQSUDFWLFDODFWLRQVDJDLQVW/RQGRQHUVRIQRQ(QJOLVKGHVFHQW Denial of entry to the freedom of the City was prime among these. In June 1586 WKH&RXUWRI$OGHUPHQIRXQG5REHUW6WUDNHUDZHDYHUJXLOW\RIKDYLQJ³ZLWWLQJO\ made free Manasses Bloome the son of a stranger born contrary to the late act of &RPPRQ&RXQFLO´7KHFRXUWFRQVHTXHQWO\RUGHUHGWKDWERWK%ORRPHDQG6WUDNHU should “be presently disfranchised from the freedom and liberties of this city for ever.”58 In January 1611, three years after Calvin’s Case, the Court of Aldermen pronounced void the freedom of Lewes Sohere, alias Sawyer, the son of an alien. $V MXVWL¿FDWLRQ WKH FRXUW PDGH H[SOLFLW UHIHUHQFH WR WKH &RPPRQ &RXQFLO¶V OHJLVODWLRQRIZKLFKSURKLELWHGWKHWDNLQJDVDSSUHQWLFHRIDQ\RQHODFNLQJ an English-born grandfather.59 6WDWLQJ WKDW ³DOO VXFK WDNLQJ RI DSSUHQWLFH>V@ presentation, enrolling and admitting into the liberties of this city or of any company thereof” was against the Act and hence invalid, the court moved to disenfranchise 56

See Chapter 1 above, pp. 43–4. 6HHQRWHEHORZIRUDGH¿QLWLRQRIWKHVHGXWLHV 58 CLRO, Rep. 21, fol. 310v. 59 The entry begins: “whereas at a Common Council held the 26th day of October in the 16th year of the reign of our late sovereign lady Queen Elizabeth, it was enacted WKDWIURPWKHQFHIRUWKQRFLWL]HQRIWKLVFLW\RIZKDWTXDOLW\VRHYHUKHZHUHVKRXOGWDNHDV apprentice any person whose father being not the child of an Englishman born was not or should not be born within the queen’s dominions or whose father had been was or should be of the allegiance of any foreign prince or state”; CLRO, Rep. 30, fol. 50r. 57

“English-born Reputed Strangers”

101

Sawyer. The wardens of the Company of Goldsmiths had complained that he had been made free of the City upon completion of his apprenticeship in their guild. Sawyer’s status as a de facto alien led the court, “according to the tenor of the said act of Common Council,” to “pronounce the said enrollment … and his admission LQWRWK>H@«IUHHGRPRIWKLVFLW\WREHDEVROXWHO\YRLG´60 $DWWHPSWWRPDNHDQRWKHUVWUDQJHU¶VVRQIUHHIXUWKHUGHPRQVWUDWHVWKH effective absence of Calvin’s Case in the City of London. That year, a proposal by the lord mayor to grant citizenship to one John Casteele prompted vehement objections from the court. The aldermen had heard the nomination of Casteele ³DV RQH RI WKH QXPEHU RI WKUHH SHUVRQV ZKLFK >KLV@ /RUGVKLS E\ YLUWXH RI KLV SUHURJDWLYH´KDGSURSRVHG³WRPDNHIUHH´61 According to the court’s minutes, the lord mayor’s nomination of Casteele followed “a precedence presented unto him of the names of the sons of some aliens that in former years had received from this court their freedom of the city.” It is not clear from the court’s records who had provided this information. The mayor, however, seems to have considered this suggestion to have been in accordance with tradition. Yet the aldermen questioned the validity of these previous moves to give citizenship to strangers’ sons, arguing that “they were not fully informed of them at the time of their grants.”62 The court voiced its opposition to the mayor’s nomination on two grounds, objecting both to Casteele’s validity as a nominee and to any wider moves to give Londoners of alien descent the freedom. The grounds for excluding Casteele are revealing. He was not a good candidate for the freedom of the City because of his status as a putative alien. The court had heard previous complaints against him ³IRUXVLQJWKHWUDGHRIPDNLQJRIFDQGOHVZLWKLQWKLVFLW\EHLQJDVWUDQJHU´)RUWKDW reason, the aldermen stated, he was “by the order of this court … prohibited and restrained from the liberty of a freedom within the city.” In this sense, Casteele’s VWDWXVDV(QJOLVKERUQZDVLUUHOHYDQW²WKH&LW\KDGSUHYLRXVO\UHJDUGHGKLPDVD stranger, and a stranger he was to remain. The court had not so much dismissed his rights as a subject under Calvin’s CaseDVLJQRUHGWKHLUH[LVWHQFHLQWKH¿UVWSODFH 7KHDOGHUPHQPRUHRYHUWRRNH[FHSWLRQWRWKHDGPLVVLRQRIany alien’s son to the freedom, both on the grounds that such actions were illegal and because they were unacceptable to the public at large. Previous moves to admit “strangers and their sons” to the freedom were “contrary to the laws and customs of this city,” and had been the cause of “a general grievance of the citizens.” Such objections were well

60

Ibid. Andrew Pettegree mentions the 1597 will of a “Lewis Sohier, a religious exile RIWKH¿UVW(OL]DEHWKDQJHQHUDWLRQ´7KLVPD\EHDUHIHUHQFHWR6DZ\HU¶VLPPLJUDQWIDWKHU see Pettegree, “Thirty Years On,” p. 307. 61 CLRO, Rep. 39, fol. 78v. As Valerie Pearl notes, the lord mayor “had the right to grant three redemptions for the freedom of the City, and even the Lady Mayoress had the right to grant one of these privileges”; Pearl, London, p. 63. 62 CLRO, Rep. 39, fol. 78v.

Diversity and Difference in Early Modern London

102

founded, for the admission of the children of strangers was, quite simply, to the ³JUHDWKXUWDQGGHWULPHQW´RIOHJLWLPDWHIUHHPHQWKRVHRI(QJOLVKEDFNJURXQG63 ,QWKHIDFHRIWKHVHSURWHVWVWKHORUGPD\RUEDFNHGGRZQVWDWLQJWKDWKHZDV “pleased not to press it further.” Moreover, he reiterated previous restrictions against aliens’ children. “[U]pon his motion´ WKH FRXUW ³WKRXJKW ¿W DQG VR ordered … that no alien, son, or grandchild of an alien shall at any time hereafter be admitted into the freedom of this city” (my emphasis). Indeed, the aldermen resolved that, if in the future “any such person” should petition the City for his freedom, “every one of this court shall as much as in them lyeth stop and hinder the proceedings.”64 For the court, the lord mayor’s nomination had been based RQHUURQHRXVLQIRUPDWLRQ²VLPLODUDFWLRQVLQWKHSDVWKDGQHYHUEHHQYDOLG7KH mayor, in turn, responded to the aldermen’s protests by moving to ensure that even &DVWHHOH¶VRZQRIIVSULQJZRXOGEHH[FOXGHGIURPFLWL]HQVKLSEDFNLQJDGHJUHH of exclusion on the basis of descent that seems to undermine his own prerogative to freely grant citizenship. The City had built upon the Common Council’s 1574 legislation concerning apprenticeship by explicitly excluding two generations of strangers’ offspring from the freedom of the City. Such actions by the lord mayor and Court of Aldermen did little to settle the issue, for the children of strangers still sought the freedom. In June 1633 the Court RI$OGHUPHQKHDUGWKHFRPSODLQWRI-RKQ0DVVLQJEHUG³FRPPRQSDFNHURIWKLV FLW\´DJDLQVW-RKQ7KHUU\³DVWUDQJHU¶VVRQERUQLQWKLVNLQJGRP´0DVVLQJEHUG accused Therry of “indirect shipping out of goods and refusing to pay the city GXWLHVRISDFNDJHDQGEDLODJH´65 Aside from raising the issue of the infringement of customs duties (which will be dealt with below), Therry’s case demonstrates the extent to which some complainants saw freedom and occupational practice as going hand in hand. The court heard further information from the London VXJDU UH¿QHUV DQG PHUFKDQWV ZKR DOOHJHG WKDW7KHUU\ ³GLG RI ODWH WDNH D JUHDW and spacious house in St. Mary Spittle without Bishopsgate London” and that he “hath proceeded in the erecting of a sugar house there.” He committed this latter DFW³XQGHUSUHWHQVHRIEHLQJERUQZLWKLQWKLVNLQJGRPDQGDIUHHPDQRIWKLVFLW\´ despite orders from the Privy Council that prohibited “all strangers and the sons of VWUDQJHUVWKRXJKERUQZLWKLQWKLVNLQJGRP´IURPUH¿QLQJVXJDUV7KHFRXUWGLGQRW dispute Therry’s English birth and clearly did not see it as conferring any particular EHQH¿WV,QVWHDGWKHDOGHUPHQDFFHSWHGWKHFKDUJHWKDWKHKDG³IUDXGXOHQWO\DQG indirectly procured his freedom” (although his manner of doing so is unclear). For this they directed the common sergeant to disfranchise John Therry “of and from the freedom and liberties of this city for ever.”66 7KHFRXUWZDVLQWHQWRQPDNLQJDQH[DPSOHRI7KHUU\LQRUGHUWRFODPSGRZQ on what it perceived to be a much wider problem. They consequently sent two 63 64 65 66

Ibid. Ibid. CLRO, Rep. 47, fol. 256r. See below for more on these duties. Ibid., fols. 256r–v.

“English-born Reputed Strangers”

103

DOGHUPHQ WR DFTXDLQW WKH ORUG NHHSHU DQG WKH ORUG SULY\ VHDO RI WKH JULHYDQFHV DJDLQVWKLPDVZHOODVRI³RWKHUVRIIHQGLQJLQWKHOLNHNLQG´67 Later that month the PHUFKDQWVDQGUH¿QHUVSUHVHQWHGDIXUWKHUFRPSODLQWWRWKH3ULY\&RXQFLODOOHJLQJ that Therry and others had failed to remove their sugar house, contrary to an order that also applied to “all other the sons of strangers as well as strangers themselves.”68 7KHSUHYLRXV$SULOWKH&RXQFLOKDGLQIDFWFRQ¿UPHGWKDW³DVZHOOWKHVRQVRI strangers as aliens themselves” were “to be utterly excluded from the trade.”69 Thus both the Court of Aldermen and the Privy Council seemed in agreement that the children of immigrants, despite their status as subjects of the Crown according to Calvin’s Case, did not have the privileges of other English-born people. Therry KDGUXQDIRXORIFLYLFDQGFHQWUDOJRYHUQPHQWLQWKHGLYHUVHDUHDVRIVXJDUUH¿QLQJ taxation and freedom, all due to his non-English parentage. John Therry’s case also shows the degree to which access to the freedom of the City was intertwined with apprenticeship and membership in a guild. As a stranger’s son, the City’s rules excluded him from the freedom. Yet the son of a freeman was also eligible for citizenship by patrimony. According to a petition WRWKHORUGPD\RUE\WKHVXJDUPHUFKDQWVDQGUH¿QHUV-RKQ7KHUU\DQGKLVEURWKHU James had attempted to exploit the loophole provided by patrimony in order to get around the exclusion of strangers’ sons. They had “lately called home from the parts beyond the seas” their younger brother Stephen, who, because he “was born after their father was made a freeman of London,” would be eligible for freedom by patrimony despite being the son of an alien.70 Moreover, the Therry sons, in order to insinuate their brother Stephen into the City’s occupational hierarchy, had “lately gotten him made free of the Company of Weavers.” By both their father’s status as a freeman and entry into the weavers’ guild, they could at least ensure that one of their own had the privilege of citizenship. According to the VXJDU UH¿QHUV WKH VXFFHVV RI WKLV VFKHPH ZRXOG OHDG ³WR WKH LQIULQJLQJ RI WKH privileges and liberties of his Majesty’s natural born subjects,” a group from which they clearly excluded the English-born John Therry.71 It also indicated the ongoing allegiance of strangers’ sons to the “parts beyond the seas.”72 Although, for the civic authorities, an alien father meant an alien son, the fact that a free father could 67

Ibid, fol. 256r. CLRO, Remembrancia, vol. 8, fol. 53v. 69 TNA, PC 2/42, p. 556. 70 CLRO, Remembrancia, vol. 8, fol. 54r. The identity of their father remains unclear. However, in 1609 one Robert Thiery was admitted into both the freedom of the City and the :HDYHUV¶&RPSDQ\RQWKHXUJLQJRIWKHNLQJGXHWR³KLVH[WUDRUGLQDU\VNLOOVDQGLQYHQWLRQV´ LQWKHDUHDRIVLONSURGXFWLRQVHH/XXImmigrants, p. 145. It is also uncertain whether the timing of birth was a factor in the gaining of citizenship by patrimony. Rappaport describes freedom as a birthright “of Londoners born to freemen,” implying at least that one’s father should be a citizen when one was born; see Rappaport, Worlds within Worlds, p. 24. 71 CLRO, Remembrancia, vol. 8, fol. 54r. 72 Ibid. 68

Diversity and Difference in Early Modern London

104

also confer his citizenship to his male offspring provided an opening to belonging for the Therry brothers. In pursuing this avenue, they deftly exploited the degree to which freedom could, in some cases at least, trump descent. The City enforced the boundaries of Englishness at the occupational level, IRU LW ZDV LQ WKH DUHQD RI ZRUN WKDW WKH DXWKRULWLHV EHOLHYHG WKH VOLSSHU\ VORSH to an alien-dominated London began. The status of freeman granted a measure of participation in the political life of the City and most Londoners gained their freedom upon completion of an apprenticeship.73 Citizenship also conferred occupational legitimacy. John Therry constructed his illegal sugar house at least in part on the basis of his “pretense of being … a freeman of this city.”74 Similarly, Lewes Sohere, alias Sawyer, gained his freedom following an illicit apprenticeship with a goldsmith.75 The City denied John Casteele his citizenship by redemption SUHFLVHO\ EHFDXVH KH KDG HQJDJHG LQ FDQGOH PDNLQJ ZKLOH ³EHLQJ D VWUDQJHU´ (though it is not clear if he had previously trained under a master of the tallowchandlers’ guild).76 Service as an apprentice was the gateway to citizenship.77 Thus, the best way to exclude the sons of strangers from the freedom was to limit their access to training within a guild. As has been seen in the previous chapter, Stephen Therry was just one of “many hundreds of aliens and the sons of aliens” that the hierarchy of the Weavers’ Company allowed to practice their art, at least if some complaints concerning IRUHLJQ LQÀXHQFH LQ WKH JXLOG DUH WR EH EHOLHYHG78 And in admitting those of foreign descent into the Company, the bailiffs, wardens and assistants provided an entry point to the freedom and thus to the central locus of belonging in London. If, after 1608, Calvin’s CaseHQVXUHG²DWOHDVWLQODZ²WKDWDQ\RQHERUQLQ(QJODQG ZDV WKH NLQJ¶V VXEMHFW DQG KHQFH (QJOLVK WKH SUDFWLFH RI WKH FLYLF DXWKRULWLHV maintained pressure in the opposite direction, away from belonging by birth and in favor of those of English descent. To do otherwise, granting the Englishness RI SHRSOH OLNH -RKQ 7KHUU\ DQG /HZHV 6DZ\HU ZRXOG RSHQ WKH &LW\ XS WR WKH LQÀXHQFHRIIRUHLJQIRUFHV

73

Rappaport, Worlds within Worlds, p. 291. CLRO, Rep. 47, fols. 256r–v. 75 CLRO, Rep. 30, fol. 50r. 76 CLRO, Rep. 39, fol. 78v. 77 6WHYH5DSSDSRUWQRWHVWKDWHQWU\LQWRWKHIUHHGRPRIWKH&LW\WRRNSODFHRQWKH “same day or usually no more than a few days later” as the ceremony that granted guild membership, following completion of an apprenticeship; see Rappaport, Worlds within Worlds, pp. 23–4. Of around 34,000 men who became free of the City between the 1530s and the 1600s, 87 percent did so via apprenticeship. A further 9 percent received freedom by patrimony, and 4 percent by redemption; see ibid., p. 291. 78 GL, MS 4647, fol. 171v. 74

“English-born Reputed Strangers”

105

Taxation and Customs Duties The City also moved to ensure that the sons of strangers paid taxes and duties at higher levels than those ascribed to English subjects. In particular, the duties RISDFNDJHVFDYDJHDQGEDLODJHVHUYHGDVDSRLQWRIIULFWLRQIRUWKHERXQGDULHV of Englishness throughout the seventeenth century.79 While aliens frequently WRRNLVVXHZLWKWKHUDWHVDQGREMHFWVRIWD[DWLRQVRWKHLU(QJOLVKERUQRIIVSULQJ protested the payment of taxes as strangers. In doing so, they explicitly used a language of subjecthood. The civic authorities, meanwhile, persistently rejected such claims to equality, arguing vehemently for the treatment of those of nonEnglish descent as aliens. The ongoing tendency on the part of the City to lump the children of strangers in with their alien parents, together with a general propensity WRWU\WRVHFXUHDVPXFKUHYHQXHDVSRVVLEOHFRPELQHGWREROVWHUDGH¿QLWLRQRI belonging grounded in descent. Aliens themselves had long been liable for payment of higher taxes, particularly LQWKHIRUPRISDFNDJHVFDYDJHDQGEDLODJH7KHFROOHFWRUVRIWKHVHGXWLHVKDG often pointed to recalcitrance on the part of strangers in paying their allotted share. In June 1581, for example, the Court of Aldermen had heard the complaint of John Smythe, the collector of scavage within the City and its liberties, “touching such strangers and others being merchants which do refuse to pay scavage in such manner and form as of long time hath been used and accustomed.”80 Similarly, in 'HFHPEHURSHQFRQÀLFWHUXSWHGEHWZHHQ³GLYHUVPHUFKDQWVWUDQJHUV´DQG WKH&LW\¶VSDFNHU5LFKDUG:ULJKWRYHUWKHSD\PHQWRIFXVWRPVGXWLHVZKHQWKH former exhibited a petition to the Court of Aldermen.81 The strangers complained RI ³VXQGU\ GLVRUGHUV « LQ WKH VHYHUDO RI¿FHV RI SDFNDJH VFDYDJH DQG RWKHU 79

3DFNDJHZDVDFKDUJHOHYLHGE\WKH&LW\IRUWKHSDFNLQJRIVWUDQJHUV¶JRRGVIRU export, scavage for the weighing of strangers’ merchandise brought to the port, while bailage was “the duty paid for the surveying and delivery of goods brought by stranger merchants by land or sea for export through the Thames by way of London.” According to Scouloudi, scavage also applied to any denizen “whose father was an alien born without the allegiance RIWKH.LQJ´VHH6FRXORXGLReturns, p. 30. The OEDPHDQZKLOHGH¿QHVSDFNDJHDV³WKH SULYLOHJHIRUPHUO\KHOGE\WKH&LW\RI/RQGRQRISDFNLQJFORWKDQGRWKHUJRRGVH[SRUWHGE\ aliens or denizens,” scavage as a “toll formerly levied by the mayor, sheriff, or corporation of London and other towns on merchant strangers, on goods offered for sale within their precincts” and bailage as “duty upon delivery of goods”; OEDVY³SDFNDJH´³VFDYDJH´ “bailage.” Early Tudor statutes dictated that denizens were to pay the same customs rates as strangers; see Chapter 1 above, pp. 38–9, and Scouloudi, Returns, p. 29. See ibid., pp. 29–30, for more on the logistics of collecting these duties. Aliens, including denizens, also paid double the English rate for the lay subsidy; see ibid., p. 17. 80 CLRO, Rep. 20, fol. 210v. 81 CLRO, Rep. 23, fol. 479r; ibid., fols. 557v–558r (also cited in Scouloudi, Returns, S 7KH³FRPPRQSDFNHU´ZDVUHVSRQVLEOHIRUVHWWLQJWKHUDWHVRISDFNDJHDQGDWWLPHV VFDYDJHLELG DVZHOODVEHLQJ³FKDUJHGZLWKWKHSDFNLQJRUVXSHUYLVLRQRIWKHSDFNLQJRI exported goods liable to custom”; OEDVY³SDFNHU´

Diversity and Difference in Early Modern London

106

things.”82 The following July the court heard the report of a committee appointed WRORRNLQWRWKHFRQWURYHUV\83 The dispute revolved around both the rates of taxation and the range of goods VXEMHFW WR SD\PHQW :KLOH WKH VWUDQJHUV DI¿UPHG WKHLU ZLOOLQJQHVV WR SD\ ³WKH UDWHVRISDFNDJH«PDGHLQWKHWLPHRI(GZDUGWKHIRXUWK´WKH\UHIXVHG³WRSD\ DQ\SDFNDJHIRUJRRGV´QRWVWLSXODWHGE\PHGLHYDOSUHFHGHQW84 The aldermen’s committee claimed that they were unable to learn from the strangers which rates were the cause of complaint.857KH\ UHFRPPHQGHG WR WKH FRXUW WKDW WKH SDFNHU clarify the current rates for the strangers, setting them down “in a table as other UDWHVDUHDOUHDG\VHWXSIRUVFDYDJHDQGRWKHUGXWLHV´7KHDOGHUPHQ¿QGLQJWKLV SURSRVDOVDWLVIDFWRU\RUGHUHGWKHSDFNHUWRGHFODUHWRWKH&LW\WKHUDWHVRISDFNDJH so that they may be “duly considered of and afterwards written in tables and openly hanged up” for all to see.86 7KHGXWLHVRISDFNDJHVFDYDJHDQGEDLODJHZRXOGDFWDVDSRLQWRIIULFWLRQIRU the boundaries of Englishness throughout the seventeenth century. While aliens WRRNLVVXHZLWKWKHUDWHVDQGREMHFWVRIWD[DWLRQVRWKHLU(QJOLVKERUQFKLOGUHQ resisted efforts by the civic authorities to compel them to pay strangers’ duties. In doing so, they highlighted their status as English subjects. On 19 December 1632 the Privy Council received a petition by “several merchants born within this NLQJGRP WKH VRQV RI VWUDQJHUV´ 7KH FRPSODLQDQWV DOOHJHG WKDW ³WKH SDFNHU RI /RQGRQGRWKUHTXLUHRIWKHPDVPXFKIHHVIRU>WKHGXWLHVRI@SDFNDJHEDLODJHDQG VKHZDJH>WKDWLVVFDYDJH@«DVKHGRWKRIVWUDQJHUVZKLFKDUHQRW(QJOLVKERUQ´ 7KHSHWLWLRQHUVDUJXHGWKDWKDYLQJEHHQERUQZLWKLQWKHNLQJGRPZKHUHWKH\KDG always resided, “though strangers’ sons” they “ought to enjoy the same favor and EHQH¿W DV QDWXUDO ERUQ VXEMHFWV´87 Summoned to meet with the Council along ZLWKWKHSDFNHUWKHIROORZLQJPRQWKWKHPHUFKDQWVUHLWHUDWHGWKHLUFODLPEDVHG

82

CLRO, Rep. 23, fol. 479r. Ibid., fol. 557v. 84 Ibid. 85 Ibid. 86 Ibid., fol. 558r. This was not, however, the end of the dispute. Wright complained of ongoing recalcitrance on the part of strangers in 1614. In 1615, strangers in turn complained RIXQMXVWGHPDQGVE\WKHSDFNHUIRUSD\PHQWRIVFDYDJHWROLWWOHDYDLO5LFKDUG:ULJKWZDV UHSODFHGE\/LRQHO:ULJKWDVSDFNHULQ$XJXVWDVLWXDWLRQWKDWGLGOLWWOHWRDPHOLRUDWH tension. Over the next two years merchant strangers argued with Wright over the correct rates of taxation. He died in September 1619, although disputes over the dues he assessed FRQWLQXHG IRU ¿YH PRUH \HDUV VHH 6FRXORXGL Returns, p. 31. Mysteriously, given that Richard Wright already seems to have held the position, CSP Domestic lists a December, 1604 letter to the lord mayor of London (the author not noted) appointing “Rich. and Rob. :ULJKW«MRLQWSDFNHUVRIZRROHQFORWKV FDQGSRUWHUVRIVWUDQJHUV¶JRRGVLQDQGRXWRI the port of London”; CSP Dom., James I, vol. 8 (1603–10), p. 179. 87 TNA, PC 2/42, p. 346. This entry is repeated almost verbatim in the City’s records; see CLRO, Remembrancia, vol. 7, fols. 97r–f 98r. 83

“English-born Reputed Strangers”

107

H[SOLFLWO\RQWKHJURXQGVWKDW³EHLQJERUQXQGHUWKHNLQJ¶VDOOHJLDQFHZLWKLQWKLV NLQJGRPWKH\FRQFHLYHWKHPVHOYHVWREH«>KLV@ODZIXOVXEMHFWV´)RUWKLVUHDVRQ WKH\VKRXOG³HQMR\WKHOLNHSULYLOHJHVDQGOLEHUWLHVZLWKWKHUHVWRIKLV0DMHVW\¶V natural born subjects.” The merchants were willing to “pay strangers’ customs” to WKHNLQJKLPVHOI³IRUVXFKJRRGVDQGPHUFKDQGL]HDVWKH\H[SRUWDQGLPSRUW´ EXW DJDLQ WKH\ WRRN SDLQV WR SRLQW RXW WKDW WKLV ZDV GHVSLWH ³WKH VDLG OLEHUW\ RI natural born subjects.” Their complaint lay with the added burden put upon them E\WKHSDFNHURI/RQGRQZKRIRUFHGWKHPWRSD\³VXFKIHHVWD[HVDQGSD\PHQWV for their said goods and merchandize as merchant strangers born do.” The civic authorities treated them as if they were aliens.88 The City defended its actions on the basis of tradition and precedent. The authorities of London collected only those duties granted “by ancient custom EH\RQGWKHPHPRU\RIPDQFRQ¿UPHGE\&KDUOHVDQGDOORZHGE\3DUOLDPHQW´ The burden was in accordance with the established tables for such rates, over which “there have been sundry trials at law” (presumably a reference to the controversy of the mid-1590s). Moreover, the sons of strangers, “though born here in England,” KDGDOZD\VEHHQOLDEOHIRUWKHVHIHHVDEXUGHQWKDWIHOOWR³WKH¿UVWGHVFHQWRQO\´ ODFNLQJ WKH ³JUDQGIDWKHU FODXVH´ RI RWKHU UHVWULFWLRQV ,Q VKRUW ³VXFK VRQV KDG DOZD\VSDLGWKHGXWLHVRISDFNDJHEDLODJHDQGVFDYDJHDVRWKHUVWUDQJHUVGRDQG ought to do.”89 In response, the Privy Council ordered the creation of a committee FRQVLVWLQJRIWKHORUGNHHSHUORUGWUHDVXUHUORUGFKDPEHUODLQDQGRWKHUVWRORRN into the matter.90,WVXOWLPDWHUXOLQJUHPDLQVXQNQRZQ In 1636 the issue again came before the Privy Council. In March of that year it KDGDSSRLQWHGDFRPPLWWHHWR³SHUXVHWKHFLW\¶VWDEOHVRISDFNDJHVFDYDJHEDLODJH DQG SRUWDJH´ LQ RUGHU WR ³FHUWLI\ ZKDW UDWHV DUH ¿WWLQJ DFFRUGLQJ WR WKH SUHVHQW times.”91 The committee had considered the rates for commodities traditionally subject to the duties, as well as for new goods that had not, until then, been listed. 2Q0D\WKH\UHSRUWHGEDFNWRWKH&RXQFLOSUHVHQWLQJWDEOHVRIWKHDSSOLFDEOH GXWLHV³WREHWDNHQE\WKH&LW\RI/RQGRQ«RIWKHPHUFKDQWVVWUDQJHUVDQGWKH VRQVRIPHUFKDQWVVWUDQJHUVLQWKH¿UVWGHVFHQW´7KH3ULY\&RXQFLOJDYHLWVDVVHQW to these rates, ordering that “transcripts and duplicates of the same should be hung up in the custom house.”92 The councilors seem to have responded to complaints of illegitimate taxation by simply incorporating the new rates into the body of traditional assessments. 88

TNA, PC 2/42, p. 375. Ibid. 90 Ibid., p. 376. 91 The committee had been ordered to examine the tables “the 16th of March last”; TNA, PC 2/46, p. 146. However, CSP Domestic contains an almost identical order to ³SHUXVH WKH FLW\¶V WDEOHV RI SDFNDJH VFDYDJH EDOOLDJH DQG SRUWDJH´ GDWHG  )HEUXDU\ 1636; 21 February contains an entry for the City’s table of fees; see CSP Dom., Charles I, vol. 9 (1635–6), pp. 241, 247. 92 TNA, PC 2/46, p. 146. 89

Diversity and Difference in Early Modern London

108


93

Ibid. TNA, PC 2/42, p. 375. 95 7KH¿QDQFLDOGHVSHUDWLRQRIWKH&URZQZDVSDUWLFXODUO\DFXWHE\WKHPLGV and especially following the denial by Parliament of funds for war on the Continent in 1626. Richard Cust has argued that the polarization caused by measures such as the forced loan (a resulting attempt to raise money without parliamentary consent) ensured that the middle ground had all but disappeared by 1641; see Richard Cust, The Forced Loan and English Politics 2[IRUG   6HH DOVR FK  RI .HYLQ 6KDUSH The Personal Rule of Charles I (New Haven, CT, 1992). Sharpe argues that Charles I was not, in fact, as heavyhanded as many have supposed, and that measures to raise revenue such as ship money were generally successful. 94

“English-born Reputed Strangers”

109

WKHLUZHLJKWWRDIRUPRIEHORQJLQJGH¿QHGE\ELUWKDVDVXEMHFWLQDOOHJLDQFHWR the sovereign. ,QÀXHQWLDO¿JXUHVKDGRIWHQLQWHUYHQHGRQEHKDOIRIWKHVRQVRIVWUDQJHUV,Q RQH-RKQRU-RVHSK+HUWIRUGSUHVXPDEO\DSHUVRQRIVXI¿FLHQWQRWHWRJDLQ WKH&LW\¶VHDUDVNHGWKHORUGPD\RUWRJUDQWFLWL]HQVKLSWRWKHVRQRI³-RKQ9HUUHD Frenchman being a free denizen.” He referred to the restrictions posed by a recent act of Common Council, which “ordained that no stranger’s son although born in London shall be made free” (possibly a reference to the legislation of 1574). To Hertford this Act was an anathema to the natural goals of good parenthood. In denying the freedom to the English-born, “all his father’s care for the provision of his son is frustrate and of no effect.” For this reason, as well as “the good report I have heard of the father” and the fact that he is “moved with compassion for the hard condition of the son,” Hartford requested “that the son of the said John Verre PD\EHUHOLHYHG´+HDVNHGWKDWDWWKHH[SLUDWLRQRIKLVDSSUHQWLFHVKLS9HUUH¶VVRQ “may be made free as all others of custom usually be.”96 Calvin’s Case seems to have had no effect on the need for such interventions, ZKLFKZHUHRQJRLQJ6RPHSHWLWLRQHUVHQJDJHGPXOWLSOHSDWURQV,QWKH'XNH RI/HQQR[ZURWHWR6LU7KRPDV0LGGOHWRQWKHORUGPD\RUDVNLQJKLPWRDGPLW one Adrian Marius to the freedom of the City, previously denied because “he came of foreign parents.” Marius’s parents were French, while he himself lived as a ERRNVHOOHULQ/RQGRQ7KHRXWFRPHRI/HQQR[¶VUHTXHVWLVQRWUHFRUGHG97 However, later that year the lord mayor received another request on Marius’s behalf, this time from Sir Thomas Parry. Parry too pointed out that Marius was “a Frenchman by parentage, but born here in England” and “very worthy to be admitted into the freedom of such a great city,” a “man of good capacity” and “very industrious.”98 Although he made note of his supplicant’s English birth, Parry seems to have viewed Marius as French, his intercession an act on behalf of a foreigner rather than a fellow Englishman. While lately employed in France, he had “found that nation very willing to grant unto us privileges of great consequence, as it is well NQRZQWRRXUPHUFKDQWVWUDGLQJLQWKRVHSDUWV$QGWKHUHIRUH,FDQQRWEXWDWDOO occasions yield them that courtesy.”99 In May 1628 the Privy Council relieved Sir William Courten from paying customs duties as a stranger. Courten was the English-born son of a Dutch immigrant ZKRKDGEHFRPHDIUHHGHQL]HQ+HZDVDOVRDNQLJKWZKRLQKLVSHWLWLRQKHOG ³KLVFDVHWREHGLIIHULQJIURPRWKHUV´,QVHHNLQJUHOLHIIURPEHLQJWD[HGDVDQ DOLHQKHPDGHVSHFLDODSSHDOWRKLV'XWFKIDWKHU¶V(QJOLVKFUHGHQWLDOV²KLVOHQJWK 96

CLRO, Remembrancia, vol. 1, fol. 277v. See also Scouloudi, Returns, p. 10. John Verre may be the same individual as “the French merchant John Verie,” whose daughter PDUULHG³RQH7KRPDV:KLWH´3HWWHJUHH³7KLUW\
110

Diversity and Difference in Early Modern London

of tenure in London, his loyal payment of taxes and the extent to which others had viewed him as belonging in the City. The elder Courten “had been a long inhabitant here in London, paying scott and lott in the city and all other duties.” For these reasons, the petitioner’s father “was reputed as an Englishman” who, at the time of his son’s birth, “was a free denizen.”100 Born in the City of London to an immigrant father with impeccable assimilationist credentials, Courten presented his own Englishness as beyond doubt. He had both “enjoyed the privilege of an Englishman and paid his Majesty’s customs accordingly.” He gave no sign of his DOLHQEDFNJURXQGDQGH[KLELWHGQRIRUHLJQWLHVKDYLQJERWK³VHWWOHGKLPVHOIDQG laid out the most part of his estate” and “planted himself and his posterity here.” +HKDGPRUHRYHUEHHQDQH[HPSODU\VXEMHFWKROGLQJ³GLYHUVJRRGRI¿FHV´DQG performing “extraordinary services” to the state.101 Such services included four loans to the Crown between 1613 and 1628, including one of £13,500.102 In short, Courten emphasized not just his English birth, nor his status as a native Londoner, but the fact that his immigrant father’s reputation and his own actions, residence and deposits of wealth were impeccably English. And the Privy Council DJUHHGDFNQRZOHGJLQJLQLWVGHFLVLRQWKDWKHGLGQRWSRVHDWKUHDWWRWKHZHDOWKRU security of the realm. The councilors were “well assured” that Courten would “not PDNHXVHRIWKLVOLEHUW\DQ\ZD\WRKLV0DMHVW\¶VGLVSUR¿W´DQGHVSHFLDOO\WKDW KHZRXOGQRWHQJDJHLQ³FRORULQJ>WKDWLVVHOOLQJ@VWUDQJHUV¶JRRGV´5DWKHUWKH\ stated that their favorable decision would be “an encouragement to him to trade PRUHDPSO\IRUWKH.LQJ¶VSUR¿WDQGKLVRZQ´7KH\VXEVHTXHQWO\RUGHUHGWKDW

100 71$ 3&  S  &RXUWHQ¶V SDUHQWV KDG ÀHG IURP )ODQGHUV LQ  KLV father establishing himself in London as a prominent textile merchant trading with the Low Countries. See Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (hereafter DNB), s.v. “Courten, Sir William.” According to the DNB, Courten himself was born in London in the same year. However, Ole Peter Grell records his birth as occurring in 1572. He also describes Courten as a “naturalized subject,” despite being born in England; see Grell, Calvinist Exiles, pp. 10, 177. 101 TNA, PC 2/38, p. 182. The reality was a little more complicated. Courten was DPRQJ WKRVH SURPLQHQW PHPEHUV RI WKH FLW\¶V 'XWFK FRQJUHJDWLRQ¿QHG LQ  LQ 6WDU Chamber for illegally exporting large amounts of gold and silver out of the realm. He paid RQHRIWKHKLJKHVW¿QHVDVXPRI…VHH*UHOOCalvinist Exiles, pp. 43–4. Courten ZDV DOVR ¿QHG ³IRU KDYLQJ WULHG WR FRUUXSW FHUWDLQ RI WKH$WWRUQH\*HQHUDO¶V ZLWQHVVHV´ Grell, Dutch Calvinists, p. 164. 102 Scouloudi, ReturnsS*UHOOVXJJHVWVWKDW&RXUWHQOHQWDWRWDO¿JXUHRI… WR NLQJV -DPHV DQG &KDUOHV ZKLOH KLV ¿UP KHOSHG WR FRQWULEXWH D VWDJJHULQJ … see Grell, Calvinist Exiles, p. 16. In 1633 Courten’s “total landed estate was valued at … >…@ SHU DQQXP´ +RZHYHU KH GLHG … LQ GHEW IROORZLQJ WKH IDLOXUH RI D )DU Eastern venture; see Scouloudi, Returns, p. 24. Both Courten and his son of the same name engaged in trade far beyond Europe; see Grell, Calvinist Exiles, pp. 16–18, and Chapter 5 below, pp. 181–2.

“English-born Reputed Strangers”

111

Sir William “shall from henceforth be suffered to trade freely … paying only his customs as an Englishman doth and as formerly he hath done.”103 Courten was able to secure exemption from paying taxes as a stranger because KHZDVDPDQRIZHDOWKDQGLQÀXHQFHQRWEHFDXVHWKH3ULY\&RXQFLOKDGGHFLGHG to put into practice a consistent philosophy of belonging based on birth. The board articulated its decision as a grant of exception to an existing rule: their petitioner was to enjoy the “liberty” of taxation as English “without interruption or molestation,” despite a “former order of the 26th of October.” This order had ruled that “according to ancient usage … the sons of strangers till the second descent” were “to pay strangers’ customs,” another “grandfather” clause. Yet this exception is also an example of how, in fact, jus soli ZRUNHG LQ SUDFWLFH$V WKH VRQ RI D stranger, Courten was partly English, partly not. The Council, in raising (and then GLVPLVVLQJ WKHSRVVLELOLW\WKDWKHPLJKW³FRORU´VWUDQJHUV¶JRRGVDFNQRZOHGJHG that his alien parentage suggested a divided allegiance. However, his loyalty and, more to the point, his “extraordinary services” to the Crown ameliorated that potential threat. As a result of his wealth as much as his English birth, the agents of a cash-strapped Crown were willing to see Sir William Courten as effectively English. Expediency had effaced descent.104 5R\DOSDWURQDJHDWWLPHVH[SOLFLWO\HYRNHGDODQJXDJHRIVXEMHFWKRRGHYHQ while alluding to the ability of the children of strangers to help the Crown. In September 1630 Charles I wrote to the lord mayor and aldermen requesting that they grant the freedom to David Etgher, a merchant of London and the son of Joas Etgher, “late of London merchant stranger.”105 For Charles, the allegiance of the younger Etgher was not in doubt, having been accorded by his birth. The City should grant him the freedom because he “is an Englishman and our subject born in that city.” Etgher’s apparent Englishness was not, of course, the only reason WRDFW$VLQWKHFDVHRIWKH3ULY\&RXQFLO¶VUXOLQJRQEHKDOIRI&RXUWHQWKHNLQJ IHOWLWQHFHVVDU\WRH[WROKLVVXEMHFW¶VFKDUDFWHUDQGWRSRLQWRXWWKHEHQH¿WVWKDW would accrue from a grant to the freedom of the City. Etgher was “a man that will endeavor to deserve” citizenship. By “his diligence in enlarging his trade” he would be better enabled “to contribute to all public charges and to bear such RI¿FHV DV PD\ KHUHDIWHU EH FRQIHUUHG RQ KLP´ 7KH NLQJ DOVR SRLQWHG RXW WKDW 103

TNA, PC 2/38, p. 182. Ibid. 105 CLRO, Remembrancia YRO  IRO U 7KLV ZDV SUREDEO\ QRW (WJKHU¶V ¿UVW attempt to assert his Englishness. In 1621 one David Otgeer, together with an Abraham des Deuxvilles, complained to the Exchequer that he had been assessed for that year’s subsidy DVERWKDQDWLYHDQGDVWUDQJHU$V(QJOLVKERUQDQGZLWKDFHUWL¿FDWHRI%DSWLVP from the Dutch Church to prove it), Otgeer asserted his right to be taxed as a native. 6WUDQJHUV²HYHQGHQL]HQV²ZHUHOLDEOHIRUWKHOD\VXEVLG\DWDGRXEOHUDWHVHH6FRXORXGL Returns, p. 17. Charles I made an exception to this rule for a group of Burgundian merchants who petitioned the Crown claiming exemption under an “ancient treaty with the House of Burgundy”; CSP Dom., Charles I, vol. 7 (1634–35), pp. 451–2. 104

Diversity and Difference in Early Modern London

112

Etgher’s father had been made “a free denizen of the realm by Queen Elizabeth.” Although not a subject, the senior Etgher had thus also owed allegiance to the English Crown.106
106 107 108 109

CLRO, Remembrancia, vol. 7, fol. 50r. Ibid. Ibid., vol. 3, fol. 189r. Ibid., vol. 7, fol. 50r.

“English-born Reputed Strangers”

113

Descent and Naturalization The failure of the civic authorities to accept the English-born children of strangers as IXOOVXEMHFWVSRLQWVQRWMXVWWRWKHVLJQL¿FDQFHRIGHVFHQWDVDPDUNHURIGLIIHUHQFH but to the degree to which Londoners privileged daily practice over legal theory. In the second half of the seventeenth century, resistance to the naturalization of strangers joined hostility to immigrants’ children as a major component of antialien antipathy. While Parliament had long granted full subjecthood to those born overseas (as opposed to the more limited rights gained by becoming a denizen), recipients had traditionally been the children of English parents who had lived abroad.110 )URP WKH V RQ KRZHYHU WKH UDQNV RI WKH QDWXUDOL]HG VORZO\ began to broaden, with the growing inclusion of individual strangers in private naturalization bills.111 And both the Crown and some members of Parliament DWWHPSWHGWRZLGHUWKHERXQGDULHVIXUWKHUEDFNLQJDJURZLQJQXPEHURISURSRVDOV for general naturalization which, if implemented, would have allowed most Protestant aliens to become English subjects.112 The debates that these efforts spawned increasingly colored civic anti-stranger sentiment, dovetailing with attitudes towards the children of strangers. Throughout the 1650s and beyond, the City continued to articulate a narrower notion of belonging than that espoused E\ FHQWUDO JRYHUQPHQW ZKLOH WKH ODWWHU²LQ LWV DWWLWXGH WRZDUGV ERWK VWUDQJHUV¶ FKLOGUHQDQGQDWXUDOL]DWLRQ²FRQVWUXHG(QJOLVKQHVVDORQJPRUHLQFOXVLYHOLQHV For the civic authorities, the naturalized and the offspring of aliens posed DQ LGHQWLFDO SUREOHP OHJDO GH¿QLWLRQV RI (QJOLVKQHVV KDG GHSDUWHG IURP WKRVH practiced by Londoners in their daily lives. For many in the metropolis, a person of alien parentage was obviously not English, regardless of legal standing. The 110

This continued after the Restoration, particularly in relation to the children of English exiles during the civil wars; see 29 Charles II, c. 6, “An Act for the Naturalizing of Children of his Majesties English Subjects born in Foreign Countries during the late Troubles,” Statutes of the Realm, vol. 5, p. 847. For a later example, see 9 William III, F³$Q$FWWRQDWXUDOL]HWKH&KLOGUHQRIVXFK2I¿FHUVDQG6ROGLHUVDQGRWKHUVWKHQDWXUDO born Subjects of this Realm who have been born abroad during the War the Parents of such Children having been in the Service of this Government,” ibid., vol. 7, pp. 380–81. For details concerning the rights granted by denization and naturalization, see Page, Letters of Denization, pp. i–ii; Yungblut, Strangers, p. 78; Scouloudi, Returns, pp. 3–4. 111 In the decades after the Restoration, naturalization bills appear to include a growing number of non-English names (although my conclusion here is not based on any rigorous statistical analysis). A typical example, which includes some who we can presume were of non-English parentage, occurred on the 23 February 1677, when, according to WKH&RPPRQV-RXUQDOV³$QQH5DYHQVFURIW-RKQ.URJHU3HWHU9DQVLWWDUW3HWHU%RXVLQLH +XJK/HQWHDQG7LPRWK\0RWWHX[WKLV'D\WRRNWKH2DWKVRI$OOHJLDQFHDQG6XSUHPDF\ in order to their Naturalization”; Journal of the House of Commons, vol. 9, p. 387. 112 See below, pp. 120–24. A rare, early attempt to naturalize an entire group (albeit RI (QJOLVK RULJLQ  WRRN SODFH LQ -XQH  ZKHQ WKH /RUGV FRQVLGHUHG DQ RUGLQDQFH WR naturalize the planters of New England; see Journal of the House of Lords, vol. 10, p. 325.

Diversity and Difference in Early Modern London

114

VDPHDSSOLHGWRQDWXUDOL]HGVWUDQJHUV,QERWKFDVHVSUDFWLFDOGH¿QLWLRQVHIIDFHG those enshrined in law. Both groups demonstrated the paradox of legal English subjects who remained strangers in behavior and affection. Complainants voiced opposition to the naturalized in terms almost identical to those charges leveled against the English-born of alien descent. Such convergence indicates that failure to accept the naturalized and the rejection of the children of strangers were merely two sides of the same idiosyncratically civic articulation of Englishness. The Interregnum Context The political and social upheaval of the 1640s and 1650s did little to alter the relationship between the City and central government over the position of VWUDQJHUVDQGWKHLURIIVSULQJ:KLOHFLYLFDXWKRULWLHVSOD\HGDVLJQL¿FDQWUROHLQ the emerging hostilities between Parliament and Crown during the 1640s, they continued to petition the latter in protest of the actions and liberties of both aliens and their progeny.113 After the regicide, the City persisted in emphasizing descent, ZKLOHWKHORUGSURWHFWRUDQG&RXQFLORI6WDWHOLNHWKHLUUR\DOIRUHEHDUVJHQHUDOO\ practiced a more expansive notion of belonging. In this sense, the relationship between the City and Commonwealth over matters of immigration followed the patterns of previous decades. By August 1650 war with Scotland had effectively QXOOL¿HG Calvin’s Case for Scots themselves, who Parliament ordered to leave England unless explicitly granted permission to stay.114 The legal situation of nonScottish strangers and their children, however, seems not to have changed, and an ordinance of 12 April 1654 united England and Scotland into one Commonwealth, ending Scottish alienation.115 And while attitudes towards the children of strangers 113

Valerie Pearl has contended that the City government only fell into the hands of the Parliamentary party in 1642, and until then was evenly divided; see Pearl, London, pp. 276–7. More recently, Robert Brenner has argued for the importance of a split within London’s mercantile elite in the emerging polarization between Parliament and Crown. The Merchant Adventurers and Levant merchants sided with the Crown in order to protect their monopolies, while smaller merchants and aristocratic projectors with hot Protestant tendencies became increasingly allied with Parliament. By the 1640s this latter group dominated London’s mercantile elite. While underwriting parliamentary power, London’s merchants relied on support from an increasingly radical London artisan class. The resulting religious polarization ultimately led to a moderate Presbyterian reaction; see Brenner, Merchants and Revolution0RVWVWULNLQJIRUWKHSXUSRVHVRIWKLVFKDSWHULVKRZOLWWOHDQ\ RIWKLVLVUHÀHFWHGLQGLVFXVVLRQVFRQFHUQLQJDOLHQVDQGWKHLURIIVSULQJ 114 Permission could include an explicit license by Parliament, outright denization or naturalization (both of which had been moot for the postnati since Calvin’s Case); see “An $FWWRSURKLELWDOOFRPPHUFHDQGWUDI¿TXHEHWZHHQ(QJODQGDQG6FRWODQGDQGHQMR\QLQJ the departure of Scots, out of the Commonwealth,” Acts and Ordinances of the Interregnum, vol. 2, pp. 406–9. 115 “An Ordinance for uniting Scotland into one Commonwealth with England,” ibid., pp. 871–5.

“English-born Reputed Strangers”

115

UHPDLQHGXQFKDQJHGWKHODWHVVDZDVLJQL¿FDQWQHZGHYHORSPHQWWKDWZRXOG FRPHWRLQÀHFWWKHLPPLJUDWLRQGHEDWHRYHUWKHIROORZLQJGHFDGHVDQHIIRUWE\WKH lord protector and Parliament to secure naturalization for a number of aliens. For the City of London this was yet another move by strangers to subvert the English and avoid taxation. Naturalized strangers would join immigrants’ children as legal English subjects who remained aliens in the eyes of the City. ,QGXULQJWKHKHLJKWRIWKH¿UVWFLYLOZDUWKH&LW\UHLWHUDWHGLWVSRVLWLRQ that the children of strangers should be taxed as aliens. The Court of Aldermen presented a proposition to Parliament demanding that “the son of an alien or GHQL]HQDOWKRXJKERUQLQWKLVNLQJGRPPD\WUDGHVRDVKHSD\DOOFXVWRPVDQG duties that strangers are liable to pay.” Parliament referred the proposition to the Committee of the Navy, to which a delegation of burgesses was sent that November ³WRLQVLVWWKHUHXSRQ´DOWKRXJKWKH&RPPLWWHH¶VHYHQWXDOUXOLQJLVQRWNQRZQ116 In the years following the regicide and the declaration of the Commonwealth, the new republican central government continued the largely pro-immigrant stance of its royal predecessors. In July 1653 the Council of State, the heir to the Privy Council, ordered that Sir Theodore Mayerne, “a stranger born … very eminent in his profession” who had been “long since invited into this nation,” be “exempted and discharged from all payments of assessments which others are VXEMHFWXQWR´DVLGHIURPWKRVHUHODWLQJWRKLVODQGV7KH&RXQFLOMXVWL¿HGLWVIDYRU as an expression of “the esteem they have of a stranger of his quality and abilities, and to manifest how acceptable his residence here is to them.”117 As in previous years, such moves by central government on behalf of strangers SURYRNHGFRPSODLQWVIURPWKHFLYLFDXWKRULWLHV2Q-DQXDU\WKH&RXQFLO of State received a delegation representing “the mayor, aldermen and commonality of London” objecting to “an order … for stay of proceedings against strangers.”118 The City was reacting to instructions from the Council the previous September IRU3DUOLDPHQWWRWDNH³LQWRFRQVLGHUDWLRQ´WKHH[LVWLQJVWDWXWHVDJDLQVWVWUDQJHUV VR ³WKDW DOO RU VR PDQ\ RI WKHP PD\ EH UHSHDOHG DV WKH 3DUOLDPHQW VKDOO WKLQN ¿W´1197KLVUHTXHVWLQWXUQUHÀHFWHGWKHUHVSRQVLYHQHVVRIWKH&RXQFLORI6WDWH to several petitions by London’s French and Dutch Protestants complaining of ongoing harassment by civic authorities. According to the strangers, the City had “molested and hindered” them “in the exercise of … their several manufactures and callings” by issuing indictments at sessions and other “proceedings against them as are provided by penal statutes.” In its response, the Council both urged the UHDSSUDLVDORIH[LVWLQJODZVDQGDFNQRZOHGJHGWKHQHHGWRFRQVLGHU³ZKDWXVHDQG 116

CLRO, Rep. 57, part 2, fol. 16v. TNA, SP 25/70, p. 15. See also CSP Dom., Commonwealth, vol. 6 (1653–54), p. 6. Mayerne had, among other things, served James I as both physician and spy; see H.R. Trevor-Roper, Europe’s Physician: The Various Life of Sir Theodore De Mayerne (New Haven, CT and London, 2006). 118 TNA, SP 25/75, p. 47. 119 TNA, SP 25/70, p. 383. 117

Diversity and Difference in Early Modern London

116

advantage it may prove … to encourage Protestant strangers in the use and exercise of their several handicrafts and manufactures within this Commonwealth.”120 And in November 1655 they issued a further answer to the petitions of 1653, urging the lord mayor and aldermen to stay “all proceedings against any Protestants strangers for exercising their callings and vocations” and emphasizing the need to succor persecuted coreligionists. It was, the Council stated, “the honor of England for many years past that those of the reformed religion who have been forced from their native country … have here found a place of refuge and relief.”121 By the late 1650s propositions to naturalize strangers had added a new element to the immigration debate between City and central government. However, the City used the issue to reiterate previous concerns about the role of the children of aliens. In March 1657 the Court of Common Council petitioned the Parliament of the Commonwealth, expressing concern about attempts by merchant strangers “to procure themselves to be naturalized.” Yet much of the complaint concerned the familiar issue of the payment of duties by the sons of strangers. Indeed, the ease ZLWKZKLFKWKH&LW\FRQÀDWHGWKHFKLOGUHQRILPPLJUDQWVZLWKDOLHQVWKHPVHOYHVLV UHYHDOLQJHYHQE\WKHODWHVFLYLFDXWKRULWLHVGH¿QHGEHORQJLQJE\GHVFHQW122 The petition complained of the repeated attempts by the children of strangers to withhold their deserved rate of customs payments. In “all times heretofore not only the merchants of foreign nations but their sons also though born in England” had paid amounts “over and above the customs and duties payable by the natural subjects.” Lately, however, “the said sons of aliens have withheld … payments pretending some exemption from the same” and, consequently, the City sought some means of enforcement from Parliament.123 8QOHVVDFWLRQZDVWDNHQE\WKH&RPPRQZHDOWKVWUDQJHUVDQGWKHLUVRQVZRXOG continue to enjoy what the City saw as a privileged status, evading their rightful SD\PHQWV$OLHQVDQGWKHLURIIVSULQJDOVRSUR¿WHGIURPWKHLUIRUHLJQWLHVHQMR\LQJ ³EHQH¿WVDQGDGYDQWDJHV´RYHUDQGDERYHWKH(QJOLVK³LQUHVSHFWRIWKHLUDOOLDQFHV and assistances abroad,” and “especially during this breach with the Spaniards.” The petitioners accused strangers and their children of draining the revenue of the state and of beggaring English merchants. By evading their rightful duties, they ensured that “not only particular cities and ports but the state most of all are hindered and deceived of the petty customs.” If “such sons of aliens themselves,” along with their immigrant parents, were to pay their rightful rates, the state would receive “considerable revenue.” Instead, the nation lost wealth and “the merchants of this nation” were “exceedingly grieved, prejudiced and discouraged.”124 According to the Common Council’s complaint, attempts by strangers to procure naturalization were merely part of this larger pattern of alien malevolence. 120 121 122 123 124

Ibid. TNA, SP 25/76, p. 367. CLRO, Common Council Journals (hereafter CC Jour.), vol. 41, fol. 154v. Ibid. Ibid.

“English-born Reputed Strangers”

117

Although the offspring of strangers, as English subjects, did not need to be naturalized, efforts by immigrants themselves to become subjects were inseparable from the stubborn refusal of aliens’ children to pay duties as strangers. Both constituted deliberate attempts to undermine the nation. The Common Council’s petition complained that merchant strangers, “under some specious pretenses,” sought naturalization by Parliament in order to secure their current “privileges and advantages and to become masters of what trade is yet remaining in the power of the (QJOLVK´$QGDOWKRXJKUHIHUULQJVSHFL¿FDOO\WR³WKHGHVLUHVRIWKHVDLGPHUFKDQWV DOLHQV IRU WKHLU QDWXUDOL]DWLRQ´ WKH SHWLWLRQHUV DVNHG WKDW DQ\ QDWXUDOL]DWLRQ ELOO VKRXOGEHTXDOL¿HGZLWK³FDXWLRQVDQGSURYLVLRQV´SURWHFWLQJWKHFROOHFWLRQRIWKH “ancient and just duties” of the nation’s cities and ports. The City saw the sons of strangers as the prime cause of the evasion of customs duties. To this degree, it is uncertain precisely to whom the petitioners refer in their complaint: strangers, their offspring, or both.125 On 13 June 1657 the Court of Common Council approved a further petition, this time to be forwarded to Cromwell himself. The complaint referred to “merchant strangers naturalized by a late act of the present Parliament.”126 This was, presumably, a reference to a private naturalization bill, possibly one passed in the &RPPRQV¿YHGD\VHDUOLHUIRU+HQU\6WH\PHUDQGRWKHUVLQZKLFKWKHFRQWLQXHG payment of customs and duties by the newly naturalized of alien parentage had provided a point of contention.127 The Council complained of the stubborn refusal of the recipients of naturalization to continue to pay customs as strangers. It was, they argued, provided by “several acts of Parliament” (all from the reigns of Henry VII and Henry VIII) that after any strangers:

125

Ibid. Ibid., fol. 157r. 127 Journal of the House of Commons, vol. 7, pp. 549–50. 7KH¿UVWDWWHPSWWRSDVV this Act contained a proviso that those naturalized “who shall trade as Merchants, and whose Parents were Aliens” should continue to pay customs and duties in the same amount as strangers. The House rejected this wording. A new proviso was added specifying the payment of duties to the City of London, also rejected after a vote. Further wording stating that the Act “or any thing therein contained, shall exempt any Person from paying Strangers RU$OLHQV'XWLHVXQWLOWKH5LVLQJRIWKHQH[W3DUOLDPHQWDQGQRORQJHU´¿QDOO\SDVVHGLQ WKHDI¿UPDWLYH7KH+RXVHQHJOHFWHGWRKDYHWKLVWKLUGSURYLVRUHDGDVHFRQGWLPHSDVVHG WKHELOODQGVHQWLWWRWKHORUGSURWHFWRU³IRUKLV&RQVHQW´LELG,FDQ¿QGQRHYLGHQFHIRU a general naturalization bill for the 1650s. As Clive Parry notes, all bills of naturalization in the seventeenth century “applied only to restricted classes of persons” (for example, WKH$FWRIIRUFHUWDLQFORWKZRUNHUVDQGWKH$FWRIIRUWKHFKLOGUHQRIFHUWDLQ 5R\DOLVWV ERUQ DEURDG  7KH ¿UVW VXFFHVVIXO JHQHUDO QDWXUDOL]DWLRQ ELOO ZDV WKH ³$FW RI Anne” (7 Ann c. 5, repealed 10 Ann c. 5), which granted effective naturalization to any SHUVRQWDNLQJWKHRDWKVRIDOOHJLDQFHDQGVXSUHPDF\DFFHSWLQJWKHUR\DOVXFFHVVLRQDQG WDNLQJWKHVDFUDPHQWVVHH3DUU\Nationality and Citizenship Laws, pp. 49, 65. 126

Diversity and Difference in Early Modern London

118

be admitted to the freedom of natural subjects … they shall nevertheless continue to pay to the city as well as to the state … such customs and duties as they did or ought to have done before such favor and freedom granted to them.128

Yet the same aliens assumed that their naturalization implied equal treatment as English subjects, refusing “to continue payment of the said duties to the petitioners, alleging that now they are to pay no duties but in common with the natural born of our own nation.”129 The City, consequently, sought aid and enforcement from the lord protector. The naturalized were, in effect, now part of the same problem as the (QJOLVKERUQFKLOGUHQRIVWUDQJHUVSHRSOHZKR²IRUWKH&LW\²ZHUHREYLRXVO\QRW English, yet who carried the legal status of English subjects. Cromwell’s response LVQRWNQRZQ+RZHYHULQKHZURWHWRWKH&RXUWRI$OGHUPHQRQ³EHKDOIRI one Claude Vorsin an alien lately naturalized for the obtaining of his freedom of this city,” acting out a role previously played by Charles I. The aldermen determined his request “inconvenient to be granted for several considerations.”130 'HVSLWHFKDQJHVLQWKHPDNHXSRIWKH&LW\¶VHOLWHDSDUOLDPHQWDU\EUHDFKZLWK the Crown, regicide, the declaration of a republic and the creation of a protectorate, little change is evident in the relationship between civic and central government over aliens and their offspring. The City continued to complain of the presence of strangers, and of efforts by their children to be regarded as English. Instead of SURWHVWLQJWRWKH3ULY\&RXQFLOWKHFLYLFRI¿FLDOVVRXJKWUHGUHVVIURPWKH&RXQFLO RI6WDWH)DLOLQJWKDWWKH\SHWLWLRQHGWKHORUGSURWHFWRUUDWKHUWKDQWKHNLQJ$QG these two national institutions acted much as their royalist predecessors had done, the Council of State weighing in on the side of strangers, and Cromwell acting as patron for an immigrant in search of the freedom. Although war with Scotland KDGEULHÀ\VXVSHQGHGCalvin’s Case for Scots themselves, notions of belonging and exclusion in relation to Continental immigrants remained curiously static. The City refused to accept that birth in England conferred Englishness. In this light, that they also denied the same power to acts of naturalization is, perhaps, not surprising. Restoration: Naturalized Aliens as Strangers’ Sons The gulf between City and central government over immigration, naturalization and the sons of strangers continued after the Restoration. As in prior decades, actions by the City against strangers and their children stemming from economic issues made powerful articulations about who belonged and who did not. 2EMHFWLRQV WR WKH QDWXUDOL]DWLRQ RI VWUDQJHUV OLNH FRPSODLQWV DJDLQVW WKH HTXDO treatment of aliens’ sons, articulated the loss of trade and revenue as prime 128

CLRO, CC Jour., vol. 41, fol. 156v. Ibid., fol. 157r. 130 Instead, the aldermen ordered that a delegation be sent to the Protector to “represent WKHVDLGLQFRQYHQLHQFHV´DOWKRXJKWKHUHVXOWLVQRWNQRZQ&/525HSIROU 129

“English-born Reputed Strangers”

119

FRQFHUQV1DWXUDOL]HGVWUDQJHUVOLNHLPPLJUDQWV¶FKLOGUHQZHUHGDQJHURXVLQVR far as they might be treated as English, evading aliens’ customs duties and trading on an equal footing with the true subjects of the realm. Equal taxation meant a loss of revenue. The right to trade as English meant that trade fell into the hands of strangers, for it was a given that aliens, once naturalized, would remain tied in affection to their brethren at home and abroad. Such objections to naturalization implied that true subjecthood could never be granted. Seen hand in hand with the UHMHFWLRQRIHTXDOLW\IRUWKHFKLOGUHQRIVWUDQJHUVLWDOVRFRQ¿UPHGWKHSULPDF\RI English descent as the sole means of granting true belonging. As in the later years of the Commonwealth, the City continued to protest any possible favors for strangers or their children, as well as further moves on the part of the new government in the direction of naturalization. In July 1660 the lord mayor and aldermen, assembled in the Court of Common Council, petitioned 3DUOLDPHQWDVNLQJWKH+RXVHRI&RPPRQVWRLJQRUHIXUWKHUUHTXHVWVRQWKHSDUW RIVWUDQJHUVIRUWKHLUQDWXUDOL]DWLRQ7KHSHWLWLRQHUVDVNHGWKDWWKH+RXVHPLJKW FRQWLQXHWRSURWHFWWKH³ELUWKULJKWVDQGSULYLOHJHV´RIWKHNLQJ¶VVXEMHFWVJUDQWHG them “by the providence and tender care of so many successors of generations” and to ensure that “the strangers who are now petitioners for it may not share in them, by an act of naturalization.” The consequences of inaction, they argued, would be many and dire, not least of which would include a catastrophic loss of trade for the natural-born English. Once naturalized, strangers “may export our manufactures on equal terms with us the natives.” As a result, “their relations beyond the seas in all parts, who formerly bought them of our English factors will now have them wholly from these new English men.” The true English, and the NLQJGRPDVDZKROH³VKDOOORVHDOOWKHEHQH¿WRIWKHIRUHLJQWUDGH´131 The 1660s were, in fact, a mixed bag, bringing new measures for the naturalization of strangers together with the ongoing exclusion of their Englishborn children. A 1662 statute for “preventing frauds and regulating abuses in his Majesty’s customs” contained a provision that “no children of aliens under the age of twenty-one years be permitted to be traders or any goods or merchandizes to be entered in their names.”132 The full rights of all English-born were, apparently, open to question in Westminster too, and in a manner that received royal assent. 131 CLRO, CC Jour., vol. 41, fols. 238v–39v. The Commons received a delegation IURPWKH&LW\GHOLYHULQJWKLVSHWLWLRQRURQHOLNHLW RQ$XJXVW7KH\UHIHUUHGLW to committee; see Journal of the House of Commons, vol. 8, p. 111. Statt cites similar arguments against naturalization made in print during the same year, such as Reasons Humbly Offered to the Parliament by the Free-Born Merchants of England; To the Right Honourable the Commons in Parliament Assembled: the Humble Petition of the Native Merchants of England; The Great Evil of Naturalizing Aliens Discovered by the City’s Reply to the Aliens’ Petition, cited in Statt, Foreigners and Englishmen, pp. 58–60, 233 n. 66, 67, 68. These denounced the 1657 naturalizations and raised points almost identical to both the City’s objections of that year and the petition of 1660. 132 14 Car. II c. 11. See Statutes of the Realm, vol. 5, pp. 393–400.

120

Diversity and Difference in Early Modern London

The City’s concerns about possible naturalization bills were also, it seems, well founded. The years 1660 and 1662 saw bills to naturalize merchant strangers debated in both houses, although their degree of comprehensiveness is unclear.133 An $FWRIJUDQWHGHIIHFWLYHQDWXUDOL]DWLRQWRKHPSDQGÀD[GUHVVHUVQHWPDNHUV and tapestry weavers who legally exercised their trades for three years.134 And a general naturalization bill was abortively introduced into the House of Commons in 1664 on the recommendation of the Committee for the Advance and Improvement of Trade. The committee suggested that in order to increase commerce, the House FRQVLGHUDELOOWRQDWXUDOL]H³DOOIRUHLJQHUVWKDWVKDOOWDNHWKH2DWKVRI$OOHJLDQFH and Supremacy,” with the exception of Jews. Although MPs voted to consider the committee’s recommendation, no such bill ultimately passed.135 At least some aliens saw Charles II’s accession as an opportunity to build upon WKH&RPPRQZHDOWK¶VPRYHVWRSURWHFWWKHPDVZHOODVWRPDNHDSSHDOVWRUR\DO precedent in the name of his father’s pro-stranger position. In 1663 the elders of the 'XWFKDQG)UHQFKFKXUFKHVZURWHWRWKHNLQJDVNLQJIRUSURWHFWLRQ6LQFHWKHGHDWK of Charles I, they wrote, many handicraftsmen of their churches “have been and daily are disturbed and vexed by information, arrests and other troubles contrary to their said Majesty’s royal letters and princely favors.” Such actions resulted in ³WKHLUJUHDWJULHI´DQGWKH³GHVWUXFWLRQRIWKHPVHOYHVDQG>WKHLU@IDPLOLHV´-XVW as “your royal Majesty’s father of blessed memory and your royal grandfather” had been “unwilling to diminish any former favors and privileges granted by their SUHGHFHVVRUV´VRWKH\DVNHGWKDWWKHFXUUHQWNLQJFRQ¿UPWKHLUSURWHFWLRQIURP the actions of the City.136&KDUOHV,,LQWXUQREOLJHGDVNLQJWKHMXGJHVDQGMXVWLFHV of the courts and all of his subjects in London and elsewhere “to permit and suffer the said strangers … and their children quietly to enjoy … such privileges and

133 For the Commons, see Journal of the House of Commons, vol. 8, pp. 133, 375. On 26 November 1660 the Lords received a messaging from the Commons putting them “in mind of the bill to naturalize divers merchant strangers”; Journal of the House of Lords, vol. 11, p. 192. Such a bill was read the second time on 4 December. On 17 December a message was sent to the Commons indicating that it had been passed, although there is no UHDVRQWREHOLHYHWKDWWKHOHJLVODWLRQZDVDQ\WKLQJRWKHUWKDQDOLVWRIVSHFL¿FLQGLYLGXDOV rather than a bill for general naturalization; see ibid., pp. 199, 212. 134 15 Car. II c. 15, cited in Parry, Nationality and Citizenship Laws, p. 47. 135 Journal of the House of Commons, vol. 8, p. 555. The House rejected the committee’s recommendations on 4 May; see ibid., p. 557. However, a “Report of the %LOOIRU1DWXUDOL]DWLRQ´ZDVPDGHWKH+RXVH¶V¿UVWEXVLQHVVIRU0D\VHHLELGS A “Bill for Naturalization” was also considered in early December of the same year, although its scope is unclear; see ibid., p. 571. The Commons considered a further bill for general naturalization in December 1667; see ibid., vol. 9, p. 29. For the 1664 general naturalization bill, see also Statt, Foreigners and Englishmen, pp. 60–61. Statt notes that the introduction of this bill prompted future Chief Justice Hale to pen the manuscript Sundry Considerations against a General Naturalization of Aliens; ibid. 136 CLRO, Remembrancia, vol. 9, fols. 42v–43r.

“English-born Reputed Strangers”

121

immunities as have been formerly granted unto them without any further suits, troubles, arrests or proceedings.”137 As well as intervening on behalf of strangers already present in England, the Crown moved to encourage further settlement from overseas. This was matched LQ3DUOLDPHQWE\HIIRUWVWRJUDQWVXEMHFWKRRGWRWKRVHDQVZHULQJWKHNLQJ¶VFDOO On 12 June 1672, three months into the third Dutch war, Charles II issued a declaration encouraging “the subjects of the United