SOHIER from Valenciennes in Southampton

      (Documentation fournie par Ruud van der Weele et Annick Green)

Cliquez ici pour lire la traduction en franηais

EXTRACTS FROM :
A. Spicer
`The French-speaking Reformed community and their Church in Southampton 1567-c. 1620'.
(unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Southampton,1994)

                           ....................................................

            THE EXILES AND THEIR ANTECEDENTS


On the 21 December 1567 a group of about fifty men and women gathered

in the chapel of Sr. Julien, a part of the medieval hospital of God's House.

They met together to celebrate the Lord's Supper; the names of those who

received the sacrament were carefully recorded. This was the first service of

the newly established French-speaking Reformed church in Southampton.

 

The survival of the register of the French church from the very beginnings

of the community has provided a unique opportunity to analyse the origins of

the initial settlers and to establish their motives for migrating to Southampton.

The names of 166 settlers are recorded in the Registre between 21 December

1567 and 2 January 1569, and the origins of 66 per cent can be firmly established.

Sixteen were either English or Channel Islanders and ten came from France, but the majority came from the Southern Netherlands: Antwerp (7), Armentiθres area (10), Bruges (1), Liθge (1), Tournai (13) and Valenciennes(51).

 

AImost a third of the initial settlers came from Valenciennes, a town now

in Northern France but which in the sixteenth century was in the Southern

Netherlands under the jurisdiction of the Habsburgs. This group of settlers

also included those who were to be the most prominent members of the community

during the first twenty years of its history: Mathieu Sohier, Arnoul le Clercq and Jean de Beaulieu. While close family relationships and business connections might be expected to develop within a refugee community, in the case of the Southampton community those links had aIready been forged before the strangers had been forced to leave the Southern Netherlands. At least twenty-six of the fifty-one people who originated from Valenciennes came from two families, the Sohiers and their distant relatives the de Beaulieus. A further six people were described as servants of these famiIies.

 

Mathieu Sohier and bis brother Jehan were among those present at the first

celebration of the Lord's Supper held in December 1567. Also in the congregation

were their sister Wauldrue Sohier with ber husband (Guillaume Coppin) and family, their cousin Jehan le Mesureur and his family, and also Arnoul le Clercq (another cousin of Mathieu Sohier) with his family. Mathieu Sohier's niece, Catherine des Plus, and bis widowed mother Jehanne de Caignoncle, also joined the Church within the first twelve months of its establishment. Other members of Mathieu Sohier's immediate family joined other exile communities. His brothers Pierre and Claude Sohier both became members of the French church in London while Cornille Sohier and his sister Marie Sohier with her husband, Christopher de Faloise, settled in Rye.

 

            The Sohiers were a prosperous Valenciennes family headed by Mathieu

Sohier pere and his wife Jehanne de Caignoncle. Although Mathieu Sohier

described himself as a merchant, he had begun to invest in the countryside.

His will, drawn up in 1557, referred to property and manorial rights in the

seigneurie of Bailloel and the fief of Haussy, as well as on rural properties and in Valenciennes itself. These interests later appear in the records of the Conseil des Troubles. Even as late as 1593, the Sohier lands at Haussy were referred to by Mathieu Sohier's son and namesake in his will. The family also had a limited interest in the public rentes issued by the city of Valenciennes although they proved a less lucrative investment than trade and so did not attract many merchants. Such investment in seigneuries, land and rentes not only provided a financial return but it also opened the route for possible social advancement. However the Sohiers' holdings do not match those belonging to the wealthy Calvinist merchants such as Vincent Resteau and the wealthy wine merchant Michel Herlin, whose properties and interests were scattered throughout Hainaut.

 

A further gauge of the family's economic standing can be obtained from the

value of the property that was confiscated from the Sohiers and their relatives

by the Conseil des Troubles. The household goods of Jean le Thieullier, the cousin of Jehanne de Caignoncle, realised 527 livres tournois 3s 3d. Guillaume Coppin’s household goods may only have realised 83 livres tournois  2s, yet in a will drawn up in 1566, he made bequests in excess of 4,100 livres tournois.

 

The Sohiers were distantly related to the ancient Sohier de Vermandois family Of Mons who had held several positions of local prominence in Valenciennes in the past.  This may have served to enhance the social standing of Sohiers; the family certainly possessed the wealth and status to marry into the leading families of the town. Mathieu Sohier had married Jehanne de Caignoncle, the sister-in-law of Jacques le Clercq and the sister of Nicolas de Caignoncle, another prominent Valenciennes merchant. Their children also made advantageous marriages, some into ιchevinale families: Pierre married Anne de la Fontaine dit Wicart; Mathieu married Catherine Resteau, the daugnter of Franηois Resteau and Anne Godin.

 

The family’s economic status and marriage alliances therefore placed them

amongst the mercantile elite of Valenciennes. While the government of the city

rested in the hands of a tight oligarchy of echevinale families who dominated the Magistrat, the merchant families controlled the Conseil Particulier which served as an important adjunct to the Magistrat. Some bourgeois families such as the de Caignoncles and the le Mesureurs did serve for short periods on the Magistrat but other wealthy merchants such as Michel Herlin and Vincent Resteau were excluded. The Sohiers were probably represented on the Conseil Particulier. Although there are no lists of those who served on the Conseil Particulier, the membership usually included the constables of the bourgeois militia. Arnoul le Clercq and Guillaume Coppin were both constables in 1553 while Jehan le Mesureur and Jehan Sohier were amongst those appointed to act as the captains of the Town Watch at the bungled execution of the Maubruslez in 1562.

 

For all their economic success and social status, the Sohiers did not assume a prominent rτle in Valenciennes Lacking the wealth of the Herlins and the prestige of such established families as the le Boucqs, they do not appear frequendy in the political life of the city. They may in fact have chosen to direct their energy towards commerce rather than becoming involved in civic affairs. The family might also have been `disqualified' on account of suspicions about their religious orthodoxy. In 1544, Jacques Sohier, probably the nephew of Mathieu Sohier, had been arrested in the company of `dogmatiseurs' . There is however stronger evidence to link the Sohiers with heresy in Valenciennes

 

By the late 1540s the Reformed movement had begun to recover from the fierce bout of persecution which had followed the arrest and execution of

Pierre Brully in l545. The hostility towards the religious policy of Brussels among the magistrates of Valenciennes was particularly conducive to such a

recovery.The civic authorities resented in particular the jurisdiction of the

special commission set up by central government to try cases in the wake of

Brully's preaching and alleged that it contravened their privileges. Further-

more, the torture of suspected heretics and the confiscation of their property

ula contrary to the privileges of Valenciennes. A placard issued on 20 Nov-

ember 1549 upheld Charles V's claim to the confiscated property in the case

of heretics and initiated a long-running dispute between the government and

the Valenciennes authorities. The placard seems to have coincided with the execution ofMichelle de Caignoncle, the widow of the bourgeois Jacques le

Clercq, and the confiscation of her goods. This no doubt heightened the

concern of the Valenciennes authorities about the issue of confiscated property.

 

Michelle de Caignoncle was the sister of Jehanne de Caignoncle and so was closely related to the Sohiers. The accounts of the confiscation of her property reveal that amongst those who received payments from her estate were Georges des Plus and Mathieu Sohier. The sale of her moveable goods raised 1212 livres tournois 4s 12d, a sizeable sum.21 Although the privileges of the citizens of Valenciennes did not protect the widow of a bourgeois, such as Michelle de Caignoncle, her execution revealed that thic class was not exempt from the powers of the Inquisition. She was in fact the only member of a merchant family to be executed in Valenciennes during Charles V's reign and merited inclusion in Jean Crespin's martyrology.

 

The Calvinist movement grew in strength during the 1550s and the Sohiers continued to be actively involved. Jehan le Mesureur, a cousin of Jehanne de Caignoncle and later a refugee in Southampton, assumed an important role in the emerging church. He was a member of an informal group of wealthy Calvinists which predated the first formal  Calvinist consistor in Valenciennes organised by Ambroise Wille of Tournai in 1563. Jehan le Mesureur examined Paul Chevalier prior to his appointment as the Calvinist minister in December 1561. He may also have helped to organise the psalm-singing demonstrations, the chanteries, in the autumn of 1561.

 

The power of  the Calvinist in Valenciennes was vividly demonstrated in 1562 in the Maubruslez affair. Following the arrest of two deacons, Maillart

and Fauveau, the Calvinists put pressure on the Magistrat and reminded them

of their responsibilities as godly magistrates, while also threatening civil dis-

order.On the other side the  Regent demanded action against Maillart and

Fauveau as she believed that the spread of heresy in the city was due to the

failure of the civic authorities to deal effectively with the problem. After vacil-

lating the Magistrat solved its dilemma by appointing a Town Watch to super-

vise the execution and to maintain order, which included thirty loyal Catholics

thirty suspected Calvinists. These included Michel Herlin and Jehan de

Lattre, as well as Jehan le Mesureur and Jehan Sohier. The release of the

Maubruslez by the crowd in Valenciennes revealed the extent to which the

Calvinists had undermined the authority of the I.

 

The Regent blamed the Magistrat for the Maubruslez affair and attempted to ensure that office-holding in Valenciennes was restricted to loyal Catholics. The appointment to the Magistrat of suspected Calvinists, such as Michel Herlin, Bertrand Gruel and also Guillaume Coppin in July 1562 and Jehan Ie Mesureur in July 1563, demonstrates the failure of this policy. Margaret of Parma also appointed her `conseiller et maistre d'hostel' to supervise the implementation of the placards in Valenciennes. Still the Calvinists continued to defy the government and in the spring of 1563 they held a series of open-air sermons. The central government punished Valenciennes by imposing a garnison on the town in May 1563 and in september a futher placard was issued.…..

 

...............................................................................................

 

.....Indeed the close commercial links between the Walloon towns and Antwerp may suggest that in many cases this migration was merely a transfer of business location.

 

The Sohiers and  de Beaulieus were actively involved in Antwerp’s overseas trade and became part of the city's merchant community, in which Calvinists were Particularly well-represented The Walloons formed a close knit group in Antwerp, living in the same area of the city and forming close business and personal ties. This strengthened existing relationships and new links were established. In 1564 Cornille Sohier married Marie, the daughter of Francois Cocquiel dit le Merchier one of the leading and wealthiest Tournai Calvinists. Other later settlers in Southampton may have been part of this Walloon community: Anthoine Jurion had moved to Antwerp from Hainaut by 1558 and the van Santuoort family may have been related to the prominent Antwerp Calvinist of that name.

 

The government used spies to identify the leading Calvinists in Antwerp. One of these was a merchant, Philippe Dauxy, who sent a list to Margaret of Parma of the leading Calvinists from the Walloon towns. On the list of Valenciennes Calvinists he identified:

 

Jehan de Beulieu, beaufils de Jan van Hof leur rabby, et Nicola de Beaulieu, beaufils de Sr Caerle Cocquel, et tous leurs freres compaignons don’t Jan Damman est lung

 

Dauxy also produced Les moyens pour remedier au desastre d'Anvers which gives further details about the Calvinists Adrien de Ia Barre, an associate of Jan Damman and ‘compaignon de Jan de Beazulieu, pres les freres mineurs’ appears in this second memorandum. It also suggested that Jan van Hof and Jean de Beaulieu were members of the consistory in Antwerp. A further report from another spy, Geronimo de Curiel denounced the company of Jan Damman (i.e. including Jean de Beaulieu and Adrien de Ia Barre). From these spy reports, it appears that de Beaulieu was a significant figure within Antwerp's Reformed community.

 

          Although none of these reports refer to the Sohiers, the family was associated with the Antwerp Calvinists. The contract of marriage between Cornille Sohier and Marie Cocquiel dit le Merchier, was witnessed by Denis des Maistres, a prominent Calvinist who had fled from Tournai to Antxverp and was denounced by Dauxy. Furthermore Nicolas du Vivier, a leading member of the Antwerp church acted on behalf of the Sohiers. Mathieu Sohier and his wife Catherine Resteau seem to have been closely linked to the Calvinist cause in Antwerp and were cited to appear before the Conseil des Troubles for having sheltered a Calvinist minister in their home.

 

            During 1566, Antxverp like other parts of the Southern Netherlands experienced the wave of hedge-preaching and then the Iconoclastic Fury of the Wonderjaar.An agreement was quickly reached between Orange and the Reformed community assumed a more public role during the remainder of 1566. They were involved in formulating the Three Million Guilders request. Ostensibly an attempt to purchase religious freedom from Philip II, this was in reality intended to finance troops to defend the Reformed churches should the Request fail. Mathieu, Cornille and Claude Sohier and Arnoul le Clercq all contributed to the Three Million Guilders Request, though de Beaulieu's name is surprisingly absent. Brederode agreed at meeting in Antwerp in February 1567 to protect the Reformed churches, if they financed the necessary military forces. Arnoul le Clercq was one of the two people appointed to collect the 20,000 florins that had been apportioned to the Valenciennes church. While the Reformed community in Antwerp played a prominent part in 1566-1567, the Calvinists there were spared the traumas and persecutions experienced by their coreligionists in the Walloon towns of Valenciennes and Tournai. Consequently many of the Protestants, who were later cited to appear before the Conseil des Troubles or whose property was to be confiscated, had been able to escape from the city and to dispose of their property.

 

…………………………………………………………………………….

The refugees were directed to Southampton by the Queen. The govem- ment was no doubt responding to the informaI approaches which had been made by the Corporation conceming the establishment of an alien community.

Southampton was probably not completely unknown to the strangers. There were long-established trading links between Rouen and Southampton, and the de Beaulieu family had factors in Rouen and Dieppe for the trade with Valenciennes and Antwerp. There were also connections between the Calvinist communities in Rouen and the Walloon towns. Furthermore a branch of the Sohier family had emigrated to the Channel Islands from Mons in the early sixteenth century. There were strong trading links between Southampton and the Channel Islands and the Sohiers also visited the port.

 

The Corporation's opinion about the establishment of the community had aIready been canvassed in a letter sent by Bishop Home to John Caplin. This letter has not survived but the Corporation's response to it has. The Corporation's letter is dated 29 May, only two weeks after the refugees' initial petition. They wrote that since 'certayne persons being destitute of dwelling places for them and there family wysheth to have abode in the Towne of Southampton' and if 'theye wilbe quiet persons there cane but do good amongest us ... and thinke we maye and shalbe hable well to have a hundreth or more of them'.

 

The refugees then wrote to the Mayor and Corporation of Southampton conceming the establishment of a community and their plight. They claimed that they could not 'endure and abide our consciences to be burdened and in especiall to beare the intolerable clogge of the Spanish Inquisicon: Wee have determined with our selves without regard either of the losse of our goodes or native Contrey to seeke out an other place of habitacon where it may be lawfull for us to live more quietly and Christian like'.

 

…………………………………………………………………….

 

The refugee merchants, 1567-c. 1585

 

During this period several refugee merchants played an active role in the town's overseas trade: Jean de Beaulieu, Arnoul le Clercq, Mathieu Sohier and Anthoinedu Quesne. The first three merchants were aIl related and came from Valenciennes. They also belonged to an extensive commercial network, the experience of which undoubtedly contributed to their mercantile activities in Southampton.

 

Mathieu Sohier was the younger brother of Claude Sohier, an Antwerp merchant who with his companions had retained factors at Rouen, Dieppe and London. Sohier's factor at Rouen seems to have been Henri de Beaulieu and at Dieppe, Augustin de Beaulieu.In Apri11567 Claude Sohier claimed that he had to leave Antwerp to see to his business affairs in Dieppe, Rouen and other places in England and France, but that he did not intend to move abroad. However Claude Sohier died in London in 1568 and his will refers to his business interests on the continent; he divided his interest and stock in companies, including the company at Valenciennes, between his wife and children. Claude's brothers Mathieu, Pierre and Camille Sohier were amongst those who were appointed as the executors of the will. Although Pierre, Jehan and Camille Sohier were aIl involved in Claude Sohier's business affairs, the extent of Mathieu Sohier's involvement is unclear.

 

The business affairs of Jean de Beaulieu before 1567 are much clearer. He was a member of an Antwerp company with Jan Damman and Adrien de la Barre which had goods and interests at Seville. Henri de Beaulieu, Jean's brother, was apparently resident in Seville in 1564. He had business dealings with his distant relatives, the Malapert brothers who had also migrated from

Valenciennes to Antwerp.'5 He may have also had commercial links with his                             

father-in-law, Jan van Hof, who was based in Loondon.

 

 

These two examples provide some indication of the mercantile background and experience which some of the refugee merchants possessed. Unfortunately little evidence has survived concerning the activities of Mathieu Sohiers's cousin, Arnoul le Clercq, before 1567. Little is known about Anthoine du Quesne; he became a member of the French church in April 1573, but it is not clear from where he originated.

 

Besides this experience, the merchants possessed the necessary funds to become actively involved in Southampton's commercial life. The refugee merchants seem to have evaded the confiscation of their goods by the Conseil des Troubles. Mathieu Sohier and his wife certainly seem to have managed to dispose of their property before they left Antwerp. Other refugees were less

fortunate; one merchant, Roland Petit, was described by Jean de Beaulieu as

`beinge a pooreman by reason of the stay of his goods beyond the seas.

Mathieu Sohier's brother-in-law, Guillaume Coppin, was forced, in October 1572, to revise his will due to his losses ihe Netherlands. His wife was left

only Coppin's moveable goods and jewels after his debts had been settled

instead of the 2,700 livres which she had first been promised. Coppin's son's

legacy of 1,400 livres tournois was reduced to 300 with a further 400 livres

tournois `when liberty shall be in the Low Countries and that profit and the

saleof my goods which are at Valenciennes may be made and that my testa-

ment may be effected'. In fact Coppin's dilapidated position was such that he

seems to have been in receipt of poor relief from the Threadneedle Street

Church.

 

Some indication of the extent to which the merchants were able to retain their assetsis revealed in the 1571 lay subsidy returns. Jean de Beaulieu was assessed as having moveable goods worth £20, Mathieu Sohier goods worth £15 and Arnoul le Clercq also £15. While this was considerably less than the £50 assessment for John Crooke and also that of Richard Goddard senior (£50) assessement for John Crooke  and also that Richard Goddard senior (£30), it did mean that the refugees had similarbresources to Southampton merchants such as Nicholas Caplin (£20), Lawrence Williams (£15), William Staveley (£20) and greater resources than those of men such as Richard Etuer (£6), Richard Goddard Junior (£8), Andrew Studley (£7) and John Errington (£5). These men formed the small &lite of wealthy Southampton merchants identified by Thomas, who engaged in the Gascon and Spanish trades.

 

 

Mathieu Sohier also had the means to lease West Hall for two years from the Southampton Corporation at £12 per annum in 1570. This substantial

property, complete with cellars and warehouses, had in the past been occupied

by Italian merchants.

 

Le Clercq and Sohier tend to overshadow other refugees who traded on a smaller scale and less widely. Refugees such as Emery Durant, Pierre Thieu-

Det, Gaspard Desert and Pierre Trenchant appear infrequently in the royal port books.importing goods from St. Malo, Rouen and Caen. More significant was the cross-Channel trade of men such as Guillaume Hersent and Robert Cousin who regularly traded with Northern France. The small scale of this trade was no doubt a reflection on the merchants' more limited means; in 1571 Durant and Cousin were assessed as having goods worth £3 and Hersent less than that, so he was subject to the poll tax.

 

Imports, 1567-c. 1585

 

            This first reference to the refugee merchants appears in the petty customs accounts in March 1568 when Mathieu Sohier paid 2d on a barrel of oil; Jean de Beau1ieu imported barrels of butter, soap, `pack threde', rape oil, one packet of Holland cloth, one of [earthern] ware and two bundles of teasels. In 1568-69 Mathieu Sohier was recorded as importing 27' tuns of wine. The petty custom accounts also refer to goods being imported and exported by other refugee merchants such as Arnoul le Clercq and Augustin de Beaulieu.A

clearer picture of the strangers' involvement in overseas trade can be seen from surviving port books. These are dominated by the activities of Arnoul le

Clercq and Mathieu Sohier, Jean de Beaulieu apparently having left Southampton before the period covered by these records.

 

Trade with Spain, Portugal and the Atlantic islands was dominated by the small elite of Southampton merchants who possessed the resources to charter vessels for such long journeys and were involved in what was essentially a luxury trade. This therefore excluded many refugee merchants, although Mathieu Sohier and Arnoul le Clercq did play a small role in this trade. In 1577, Mathieu Sohier chartered the Dove of Hampton for a voyage to Lisbon. In 1575-76 le Clercq imported to Southampton one tun of `secke cask' compared with the 120tuns and 16 butts of `seck cask' imported from Andalucia by Southampton merchants. Besides wine, they imported cargoes of figs, raisins, ginger, brimstone, oil and Spanish salt and iron from Andalucia, Ayamonte, Bilbao and St. Sebastian. The exiles also traded occasionally with the Atlantic islands of the Azores and the Canaries. In June 1574 the John of

Hampton returned to Southampton with eighteen tuns of Canary wine for

Mathieu Sohier and Anthoine du Quesne. The principal commodity

imported from the Azores was green woad; in 1574 the Angel of Poole returned with 3 score and 15 quintals of green woad for Arnoul le Clercq. However the elite Southampton merchants also dominated this trade and only insignificant quantities were imported by the refugee merchants.

 

The refugee merchants were more actively involved in the town's trade with South Western France. This trade attracted only a few of the wealthiest

Southampton merchants because of the necessary investment of capital in large ships for the long voyage and because it was a trade in semi-luxury goods. In 1575-76 for example the Dove of Hampton sailed from Southampton on 28 November 1575 for Bordeaux, carrying cloth for le Clercq, Sohier and Richard Etuer and returned to Southampton from La Rochelle on 28 February 1526 carrying 30 weighs of bay salt and 3 tuns of Rochelle wine  for the merchants. The Dove of Hampton, sailed with another cargo for the merchants to La Rochelle on 9 April 1576 and returned to Southampton on 24 July 1576. The refugee merchants generally seem to have traded as individuals but on one occasion there was a combined venture between refugee and native merchants. In a  contract for the Flying Dove of Hampton in February 1583, the tonnage of the ship was divided between Richard Goddard (25 tons), Peter Janverain (12 tons),  John Exton (5 tons), Alexander Pendry (5 tons), Mathieu Sohier (5 tons) and Arnoul le Clercq (15 tons).

 

         The refugee merchants only imported a limited quantity of wine into   Southampton during 1575-76, a mere 9,5 tuns of Gascon wine compared with

the 96 tuns of Gascon wine imported by the Southampton merchants. Wine was not the only cargo which came to Southampton from South West France; bar salt was the principal import for the refugee merchants. ln 1575-76,320 weighs of bay salt were imported to Southampton and its satellites, from La Rochelle, including one cargo of 70 weighs imported by one William Lounde of Yarmouth. The refugee merchants therefore accounted for 12.6 percent of the imported bay salt compared with the 54.3 percent imported by Southampton merchants. The town's importation of Toulouse woad had gradually been replaced by green woad from the Azores but small quantities of woad were still imported by refugee and Southampton merchants.

 

The refugees' imports from South Western France seem to be of only limited significance. However, the ships chartered by le Clercq and Sohier did not always retum directly to Southampton. ln September 1576, Arnoul le Clercq and Mathieu Sohier with Richard Etuer chartered the Dove of Hampton 'for one viage from hence [Southampton] to Rochell and ther to tarrie sixe dayes and from thence to Burdeux ther to tarrie xvijj dayes to unlade & also to relade &c and from thence to tarrie at Guarnzie two rides to have awnswere of the merchants whether he shall goe to St. Mallowes or Suthampton,. ln September 1578 the merchants chartered the Dove of Hampton again to La Rochelle and then to Charente, the ship was then 'to reterne within th'isle of Wighte for annswere wher they shall passe to Midlebroughe, Duncarke or ostende in Flanders'. The ship retumed to Southampton from Middelburg

on the 29 December 1578. The merchants chartered the same ship for similar voyages in October 1579 and November 1580.

 

The involvement of le Clercq and Sohier in trade between La Rochelle and Middelburg may in fact have been a continuation of their business interests from before the Troubles. Middelburg was the main entrepτt for foreign wines into the Netherlands, in particular those from Western France. This trade had originally been handled by the Rochelais, but after 1555 the wine trade between La Rochelle and the Netherlands came to be dominated by merchants from the Netherlands and England as weIl as by German merchants. These merchants from the Netherlands had sirnilarly taken over the importation of  wine from Bordeaux. The activities of the refugee merchants perhaps should be seen in this context rather than assuming that their interests were confined to trading directly between Southampton and the Western French ports. It is  difficult to assess the significance of this trade network, but perhaps some insight can be gained from one cargo which went to Middelburg via Southampton. ln a contract dated January 1577, le Clercq hired the Grey Falcon of London to transfer 171 'butts of wines of sheres cornmonlie called Seckes' from Southampton to Middelburg which was to be delivered to one Jasper Craiet.

 

The refugee merchants imported goods from the Netherlands, presumably ., after their cargoes from La Rochelle or Bordeaux had been unloaded. The Dove of Hampton had sailed to Bordeaux but returned from Middelburg in 1578 with 1,200 lb of madder for Mathieu Sohier, 1,200 lb for Richard Etuer and 2,400 lb of madder and 4,000 lb of hops for Arnoul le Clercq. The ship sailed to La Rochelle on 27 January 1579 and returned in April from Middelburg, with a cargo of 3,000 lb of hops, 1,400 lb of madder, 3 lasts of pitch and tar and 2 lasts of Flernish soap for Arnoul le Clercq.

 

Goods were not solely imported from the Netherlands by le Clercq and Sohier as a result of this triangular trade network. They also traded directly with the Netherlands. As has been seen le Clercq had hired the Grey Falcon of London in 1577 to sait to Middelburg; in the same year he chartered the Pros- penty of Rye to Sluis in Flanders and then on to Bruges. The refugee mer- chants also imported goods from the Netherlands through Dunkirk, Flushing and Ostend. The use of a range of Netherlands ports may have been due to the political difficulties which made Antwerp inaccessible. Generally bags of hops and madder were imported but small quantities of cloth also appear. ln .1575-76, for example, Arnoul le Clercq imported 38 pieces of Ghentish cloth into Southampton and in addition English merchants imported small quantities of says, Holland cloth and mockadoes. Southampton's trade with the Netherlands was generally limited and declined after 1580. It was not a trade which generally attracted the more important merchants and even the refugees' direct trade with their homeland seems to have been limited.

 

The town's trade with the Baltic was also limited but reached its peak during the late 1570s. The partnership of Etuer, Sohier and le Clercq also played a role in this trade. The Peter of Hampton returned from Danzig in August 1575 with a cargo of 9 lasts of pitch and tar, 50 bales of flax, 1,500 lb of hemp and 20 kegs of eels. Similar cargoes were imported in the Dove of Hampton in September 1579 and the Lyon of Hampton in August 1581.

 

Like many of the lesser merchants Arnoul le Clercq and Mathieu Sohier were also involved in the cross-Channel trade with Northem France. Occasionally cargoes were imported from Calais but their cargoes were gener- ally similar to those which were imported from the Netherlands. According to the port books, Arnoul le Clercq and Mathieu Sohier seem to have been less actively involved in trade with Rouen than the lesser merchants, Robert Cousin and Guillaume Hersent. Cousin imported a variety of goods from Rouen which were often related to the production of the 'new draperies' such as teasels, woolcards and woad. He also imported small quantities of Norm- andy canvas, vinegar, paper, prunes, rape oοl and, on one occasion, a tun and one 'ponchion' of French wine, from Rouen and other Norman ports. Cousin seems to have traded regularly until bis death in 1584. Hersent also imported small quantities of vinegar, Normandy canvas, teasels etc. from Norman ports but in particular he regularly imported woad from Caen. ln 1580-81, for example, he imported 56,000 lb of woad.

 

Le Clercq and Sohier were more actively involved in trade with St. Malo. The importation of canvas from Brittany represented a significant element of Southampton's import trade until the mid-1580s. The quantity of canvas imported by the refugee merchants seems to have varied. ln 1575-76 the refu- gee merchants do Dot seem to have imported any goods from St. Malo. ln 1580-81 however Arnoul le Clercq imported 69! 'fardels' of vitry canvas, 3 'fardels' of Rumbelo canvas and a further 90 bolts of unspecified canvas from St. Malo, as wel as 3,100 lb of prunes. The Breton trade, however, generaily attracted the lesser merchants due to the lower costs involved; in particular small-scale Southampton merchants and merchants from Salisbury and the Channel Islands dominated the importation of canvas.

Exports, 1567-c. 1585

While the refugee merchants imported a range of different goods to Southampton, they had only one major export, the cloths of the 'new draperies'. Although the export of the 'old draperies', in particular the Winton or Hampshire kerseys reached its height in the 1570s, the refugee merchants rarely exported these cloths. An analysis of the surviving Exchequer Port Books reveals the extent of the trade in the 'new draperies' as well as the distribution of these exports.

 

The export of says and bays increased rapid1y until 1579-80; the total number of says exported in that year was twice the quantity exported in 1573- 74. The export of says declined in 1580-81 (which may be linked with the beginnings of the town's economic decline in the early 1580s) and collapsed in 1583-84 to less than half the total in 1573-74. This collapse in exports was probably precipitated by the outbreak of plague, which lasted from April 1583 through to April 1584 and caused seventy-one deaths in the French community. The collapse also coincided with the departure of Mathieu Sohier and Arnoul le Clercq from Southampton. ln 1583-84, the refugee merchants exported a mere thirty-four says, less than a third of the cloths of the 'new draperies' which were exported.

 

The export of bays from Southampton was dominated by non-refugee merchants. ln some years there was a single large consignment of bays exported by one merchant, and this does distort the figures. For example in 1575-76, William Merryvall of Salisbury exported 55 bays to Bayonne. ln 1580-81, 50 bays were sent to the Azores by the Southampton merchants Richard Biston, Edmund Caplin and John Crooke. It is surprising that the refugee merchants did not become involved in the exportation of bays, but before 1579 the principal markets for bays seem to have been in areas such as Andalucia, Bayonne and the Azores, which were dominated by the ιlite of Southampton merchants.

 

As can be seen from Table III; the refugee merchants dominated the export of says. The table analyses the refugee merchants' share of the export of says. ln 1573-74 the refugees exported 75.7 percent of the gays which left Southampton and 81.85 percent in 1578-79. The refugees' share of the exports declined after 1578-79, even though the total number of says exported peaked in 1579-80. The sharp fall in the refugees' share of say exports in 1575-76 to a mere 45.8 percent of the total is intriguing. Arnoul le Clercq's share of say exports fell to a mere 17.6 percent and may in part account for the decline. However the fall may have been due to the increase in the customs duties for refugees. Permission for the refugees to be exempt from the higher strangers customs rate for goods produced by the new techniques was for a period of seven years. Presumably this exemption ended in 1574 and they would have had to pay a higher rate for the export of says. Consequently Southampton merchants were then able to export the cloths of the 'new draperies' more cheaply than the refugees. However any such faIl in the refugees' share of say exports was temporary and they had clearly recovered their dominance by 1578-79.

 

An analysis of the surviving royal port books for 1567-85 reveals the distribution of 'new drapery' exports from Southampton. Initially Spain and Portugal, in 1573-74, accounted for 15.8 percent of these exports but this had declined rapidly. By 1580-81 it accounted for only 5.9 percent of say exports and at its lowest point, a mere 2.2 percent. Although in 1573-74 le Clercq sent 37 says and Sohier 8 says to Spain and Portugal, no other refugee merchants were attracted to this trade. From this date the refugees' exports to lberia declined, possibly as a result of the restoration of the strangers' rate of customs which made it more difficult for the  refugee merchants to compete in that market. The English merchants generally maintained a steady trade in the 'new drapery' cloths with Iberia but this was on a very small scale. ln particular they exported significant quantities of bays; in 1573-74, 114 bays were exported which accounted for 81.1 percent of total bay exports. The significance of these bay exports also declined over this period. The exports to Iberia slumped in 1578-79, possibly due to the establishment of the Spanish Company, although the data for 1579-80 shows a recovery.

 

The export trade with the Atlantic islands underwent similar changes. lnitially the refugee merchants actively exported the 'new draperies' to the Azores and other Atlantic islands; in 1573-74, le Clercq exported more says to the Atlantic islands than any other merchant. However after that date, the refugee merchants ceased to be involved in this trade which seems to have fallen to the English merchants who exported says and in particular significant quantities of bays. Again the reason for this may have been the restoration of the strangers' rate of customs.

 

The principal destination for the 'new draperies' was France. The more lucrative trade was with the ports of Western France, in particular Bordeaux and La Rochelle. In this period this area accounted for between 15.6 percent and 32.6 percent of the total number of says which were exported. Small quantities of bays were exported to South Western France, principally to Bayonne. La Rochelle and Bordeaux were both important for the import of wine to Southampton and the export of the 'new drapery' cloths represented the other half of this trade for the refugee merchants. Arnoul le Clercq and Mathieu Sohier were the major exporters of says to these ports. By 1579-80 other refugee merchants had also begun to export cloth. Le Clercq's son-in-Iaw, Jean le Mercier, exported says to Bordeaux and La Rochelle; two other Southampton refugees, Gaspard Desert and Peter Pochι, also exported small quantities to Bordeaux. Previously English mercnants had exported the '0ld draperies' as well as quantities of tin, wax and lead to these ports but they gradually began to encroach upon the  refugees' domination of say exports.In 1580-81, English merchants exported more says than the refugee merchants to La Rochelle and Bordeaux.

 

The ports of Northem France generally attracted the lesser merchants presumably because this trade required less capital. However the level of trade was significant and in some years was the principal destination for say exports. The cloths were exported to several Norman ports: Dieppe, Caen, Rouen, Honfleur, Quillebeuf-sur-Ie-Seine and Le Havre. The volume of these exports fluctuated during this period. ln 1573-74, 19.1 percent (64 says) of the total number of says exported from Southampton sent to Northem France. This increased to 62 percent (319! says) in 1578-79 only to faIl to 22.8 percent (146 says) in 1580-81. This trade was dominated by the refugees and generally only negligible quantities were exported by non-refugee merchants. Although le Clercq and Sohier were actively involved in this trade, significant quantities of the 'new draperies' were also exported by other refugees. ln 1579-80, Sohier and le Clercq accounted for 33.9 percent of the says exported to Northem France but other refugee merchants exported 65.3 percent of the says. In this cross-Channel trade, two principal merchants stand out: Guillaume Hersent and Robert Cousin. Generally, however, the quantities of says exported by these other refugee merchants were quite modest.

 

Rouen was one of the destinations for cloth exported to Northem France. Goods sent to this city had to be sold immediately after unloading unless a congι was obtained from the municipal authorities permitting the merchants to store their goods. Since many Spanish, Italian and Flemish merchants tended to avoid the need to apply for congιs by retaining legally resident factors in Rouen, the majority of the congιs refer to English merchants. Although merchants from Southampton were amongst those who applied for congιs from the Rouen authorities, only three congιs refer to the refugee merchants. This suggests that the refugees either sold their goods immediately on arrival in Rouen or that they exploited their contacts in Rouen's 'Flemish' community. Jehan le Mesureur may have acted as a factor; certainly he arranged a congι on behalf of Arnoul le Clercq and Mathieu Sohier, in which he was described as a 'stippulant, (A 'stippulanf" was probably a broker.) In a congι authorised in June 1572, the merchants stored their goods at the home of Richard le Nud's widow who may have passed through Southampton in 1569. The final congι was issued to Robert Cousin in November 1575.82 The value of the congιs as a source for studying Rouen trade declines from the mid-1570s onwards, as the information they contain becomes less detailed.

 

Significant quantities of the 'new draperies' were also exported to Brittany and the Channel Islands during this period. Initially the refugee merchants were not attracted to this trade, but by 1580-81 they exported 59.3 per cent of the says sent to Brittany and the Channel Islands. The cloths were principally exported to St. Malo with smaller quantities of cloths being sent to Morlaix and Nantes.

 

Only negligible quantities of the 'new draperies' were exported to the-Netherlands. Le Clercq and Sohier were the only merchants who exported cloths there but even so it remained a very small part of their export trade.This should not perhaps be surprising in view of the political situation in the Netherlands but also because the 'new drapery' cloths were produced there anyway. In fact, Orange had reluctantly granted the Merchant Adventurers in 1573 safe passage for four ships to sail along the Scheldt estuary, which was controlled by the rebels, to Antwerp so long as they only contained English produce and not the 'new draperies' which would compete with the Dutch

textile industry.

Migration and decline

 

The 'Flemish' community in Rouen seems to have attracted several of the early refugee settlers in Southampton. Indeed some of these merchants may have had earlier links with Rouen for there were trading links between that city and both Antwerp and Valenciennes. Henri de Beaulieu, who stood as the god-father for bis nephew Jean de Beaulieu in 1570, apparently migrated to Rouen. Similarities in the heraldry of the de Beaulieus and the fact that the Rouen Henri de Beaulieu originated from Valenciennes, suggest that the sponsor in Southampton and bis namesake in Rouen were in fact one and the same person. He had been the factor of Claude Sohier and settled in Rouen from about 1568 onwards where he may have remained during the disorders in the Netherlands. In June 1571 Henri de Beaulieu became a naturalised Frenchman. He took an active part in Rouen's commercial life and by 1576 was described as a citizen of Rouen. Pierre de Beaulieu, the brother of Jean and , Henri de Beaulieu, also appears to have settled in Rouen. He had been admitted to the first Lord's Supper in Southampton, but was active in Rouen

between 1570 and 1572.

 

Nicholas Dorville was another exile who settled in Rouen after being admitted to the Lord's Supper in Southampton in 1567. He traded with Rouen and was described in March 1571 as being resident in England but by November, Dorville had settled in Rouen. He was also involved in commerce with Henri de Beaulieu. Dorville's uncle, Jehan le Mesureur also migrated to Rouen where in February 1572 he arranged a congι on behalf of Arnoul le Clercq and Mathieu Sohier. Dorville was not recorded again in Southampton after December 1567 and the final entry relating to le Mesureur is dated 18 July 1568.

 

The migration to Rouen began very soon after the establishment of the exile community in Southampton. Other refugee merchants traded for slightly longer before leaving the town. In May 1571 Jean de Beaulieu claimed that he had 'occupied and used the makinge of bayes & sayes and nothinge ells' but 'for theise iiij or v monthes space he hathe litle or nothinge tradid the makinge of bayes and sayes as before'. Yet according to the town's petty customs books, he had been actively involved in the town's trade before 1570. De Beaulieu seems to have migrated soon after 1571, for in that year he was assessed for the lay subsidy and paid bis 'stall & art' dues and was described in October as being resident in 'Hampton,. Although he apparently had lodgings in London by May 1571, he does not appear in any of the surveys of aliens made in the capital. A similar move to London was made by de Beaulieu's brother Augustin although his name does periodically reappear in the Southampton archives.

 

The impact of such merchants on the economy of Southampton was limited when set beside the contribution of merchants like Arnoul le Clercq and Mathieu Sohier who traded from Southampton throughout the 1570s. By the early 1580s Southampton had begun to experience economic difficulties. In 1582 an account of the decayed state of Southampton was written by an anonymous author. After recounting the town's prosperity earlier in the sixteenth century, the author went on to identify the reasons for Southampton's decline. He stated that:

“The most part of our Merchants were nowe become rych and so taryed at home taking their rest, and in their places sett yong men to the seas for their factors, trusting them with great stockes: so that these factors in short rime by their factorshippes and provision allowed them, gott good sommes of money, and fell to occupying for them selves lustely: but in shorter tyme then they had to gett this wealth, by lusteness, banquetting and gamming, they spent away all their owne, and yet were so bolde with their Masters as to consume their substance, and so brought them home such accomptes as manie of them feele the smarte therof unto this daye. ln this article you must understande that after a man bath borne anie good office in the towne, it is some discredit unto him to goe any more to the seas, but must srill tarie at home & keepe some state and countenance. This case and state ys manie rimes dearly bought. “

The author clearly had some particular merchants in mind when he wrote this moralistic attack though the reference to holding municipal office would suggest that the refugee merchants were not amongst the accused.

 

The memorialist went on to identify piracy as a more pressing problem, as weIl as the trade in prize goods. He wrote:

 

“For these eight or tenne yeares last past pyrates have styll haunted about these costes, who have not only taken manie ships bounden into this port and sold away their commodities . . . to the great hindrance of our Merchants. . . [they] have also robbed and spoyled many of our Merchants even at their owne dores, & so sold away their good as it were before their owne faces, to the undoing of many which shall never be able to recover themselves againe. “

 

Piracy was certainly something which affected the refugee merchants directly. Some refugees such as Jean de Beaulieu were actively involved in financing the operations of the Sea Beggars and benefited from the trade in prize goods. Other Southampton merchants, possibly including the refugees, merely traded in the prize goods auctioned at Meadhole. While dealing in prize goods could be lucrative, piracy damaged trade. A petition came before the Privy Council in 1575 concerning the Black Raven which had been carrying £.1,000 worth of goods for Arnoul le Clercq, Richard Etuer and one Roger Perrye of Poole when it was attacked by Portuguese pirates. Unfortunately the appropriale port book has not survived so it is impossible to identify the cargo or the ship's destination. The merchants obtained letters of reprisaI 'for the staie of certein Portingalls' goodes in recompense of the losse of a ship called the BlackRaven . . . spoiled by the subjectes of the Kinge of Portingall'. A ship called the Flying Ghost was seized together with its cargo of salt. However Andrew Ruiz, based at Nantes and a member of the prominent Spanish merchant family, claimed that the cargo of salt belonged to him. The dispute was still unresolved in February 1577. This is the only recorded case of refugee merchants having experienced financial losses and difficulties as a result of piracy but given the prevalence of freebooters in this period, it would be surprising if this experience was unprecedented.

 

The Spanish trade was of particular importance for the town's economy but with the establishment of the Spanish Company in 1577 the memorialist suggests that trade became increasingly restricted. While this may have been the case, the Southampton merchants were not entirely excluded from the trade with Spain as has been sometimes implied. In fact when the Company was established in 1577 twenty-six Southampton merchants were listed as founder members, including Richard Etuer who had close links with the refugee community. Furthermore it was possible for ports such as Yarmouth to continue to trade with the Iberian peninsula ignoring the monopoly of the Spanish Company. In view of the limited trade that the refugee merchants had with Spain and Portugal before 1577, the establishment of the Company probably did not seriously affect their business interests.

 

The refugees with their burden of a higher rate of customs duties after 1574 may have experienced financial difficulties as a result of the farming of customs duties. The farming of customs was certainly another complaint made by the anonymous memorialist in 1582 who implied that this resulted in the stricter collection of the customs. Whether this had any great impact is unclear because apart from several specific instances of fraud, the port books seem generally to have been reliable.

 

These problems may have contributed to the economic decline of Southampton but in any event Arnoul le Clercq and Mathieu Sohier left Southampton in 1583. Le Clercq made a 'stall & art' payment of 20s in 1582 and in the following year exported three consignments of cloth from Southampton. In July 1582, however, le Clercq had appointed Jean le Mercier as his attorney for collecting and paying debts. Le Clercq migrated to Middelburg although he does not seem to have become a member of the Walloon church in the town. He exported cargoes of herrings to Southampton from Middelburg in 1585 and 1586 and a further cargo of raisins in April 1587. Two of these cargoes were transported in the Flying Dave of Hampton, a ship which le Clercq had used white he was living in Southampton and which he again hired when he was in Middelburg in December 1585.

 

ln 1583 Mathieu Sohier made a payment of 6s 8d for his 'stall & art' dues; this is the last reference to him living in Southampton.  A 'Duch' merchant called Mathieu Sohier was recorded in a survey of strangers in London in 1583 as living in Walbrooke ward in the company of a distant relative and prosperous merchant, Guido Malapert. Although Sohier continued occasionally to import and export goods through Southampton, he remained in London until his death in 1605

 

The Refugees and Overseas Trade, c. 1585-c. 1595

The econornic decline of Southampton in the early 1580s was exacerbated by the political situation in the Netherlands and the renewaI of war against Spain. ln the Netherlands, the Company of Merchant Adventurers had left Antwerp for the relative safety of Middelburg in October 1582. Antwerp surrendered to Parma's forces in August 1585 and further anxiety was caused amongst the Merchant Adventurers by the Spanish capture of Sluis, which threatened the island of WaIcheren. These events combined with the difficulties being experienced at Emden, the Company's German mart, resulted in a faIl in the export of English cloth. The consequent unemployment amongst the clothworkers was exacerbated by the poor harvest of 1586. The combination of social crisis and heightened anxiety about possible Spanish attack may have played some part in the Hampshire Beacon Plot of 1586 when a group of plotters, who included several weavers and tailors, intended to loot barns and storehouses for grain. The crisis of 1586-87 ended with the Merchant Adventurers' establishment of a suitable outlet for English cloths at Stade. The significance of such a dislocation for Southampton's commerce is debatable as the trade with the Netherlands was of only rninor importance during Elizabeth's reign.

 

As a result of Parma's reconquest of Brabant and Flanders, which culminated with the faIl of Antwerp in August 1585, Elizabeth concluded the Treaty of Nonsuch by which she agreed to provide assistance openly to the Dutch cause. This disrupted not only trade with the Netherlands but aIso with Spain. The situation worsened when Philip Il seized English ships in December 1585, in reprisaI for Drake's actions in the Caribbean. With the renewal of civil war in France trade became more difficult as the west coast of France and the Channel became the haunt of pirates.

 

The disruption of trade with Iberia and the Atlantic islands bore much more heavily on Southampton than the difficulties in the Netherlands. The trade with Spain had been an important element of the town's prosperity until the outbreak of hostilities when it generaIly ceased. A lirnited degree of trade was maintained by alien merchants using alien ships, in some cases with the protection of the English authorities. Commerce with the Azores was also technicaIly affected following the annexation of the Portuguese kingdom and empire by Philip II in 1580 but a regular trade does seem to have continued, in spite of losses through privateering.

 

Privateering became an important element of the town's trade during the Spanish war. Merchants, such as John Crooke, John Errington and Richard Goddard, had all been actively involved in trade with Spain and the Atlantic Islands but finding this trade disrupted by war, resorted to privateering in order to obtain their imports. One of the largest shipowners in Southampton Henry Ughtred, received letters of reprisal from the Duke of Anjou in 1582 authorising him to equip three ships to sail against the Spaniards at Peru and 'other islands'. One of his ships, the Susan Fortune attacked the Portuguese fishing fteet off Newfoundland that summer. One ship which was taken as a prize during this period, was the Jacques of Dieppe with its cargo which belonged to one Nicholas Sohier of Rye, presumably a relative of Mathieu Sohier's brother Comille. Privateering became an important element in Southampton's economy and was probably partly responsible for the revival in trade between 1592 and 1596. It seems that there was also a brief recovery in the town's trade with France and the Channel Islands in the early 1590s but this faded by the end of the century.

 

Jean le Mercier

Between 1585 and 1595, only one refugee merchant, Jean le Mercier, matched the activity of le Clercq and Mathieu Sohier in the town's overseas trade. Le Mercier originated from Tournai and was the son of Franηois Cocquiel dit le Merchier, a prominent Calvinist merchant who had migrated to Antwerp and was associated with the Sohiers. He first appeared in Southampton in 1579 when he married the daughter of Arnoul le Clercq. Le Mercier first became involved in Southampton's overseas trade in the early 1580s. He exported 18 says to Bordeaux in September 1580 and the following month a further 14 says were sent to La Rochelle; in August 1584 he exported 6 gays to St. Malo with Arnoul le Clercq. But it was not until 1585 that le Mercier played a prominent part in the town's trade. However le Mercier's commercial connections were not as extensive as those of bis father-in-law, Arnoul le Clercq, or those of Mathieu Sohier, but this may in part have been due to the foreign situation.

 

Although le Mercier does not seem to have traded with Spain, he apparently imported one cargo of green woad from the Azores in 1588. He imported wine from Bordeaux, as weIl as raisins and prunes on occasion, and salt from La Rochelle. Trade with these ports even attracted one of the town's smaller merchants whose trade was normally confined to Northern France. Guillaume Hersent imported bay salt, dates and oats from La Rochelle in 1588-89. Le Mercier's trade with South Western France does seem to have been less frequent than that of le Clercq and Sohier but again this may have been due to the political situation. In fact it became necessary to protect the wine fleet to Bordeaux with a convoy against pirates, which was financed by a levy imposed on the imported goods.

 

Le Mercier traded regularly with Middelburg with several cargoes being imported each year. It is unclear what, if any, links there were between le Mercier and le Clercq who had migrated to Middelburg in 1583. Le Mercier imported goods which had been produced or manufactured in the Netherlands such as hops, madder, rape oil and 'Holland linings' but he also imported goods which were redistributed through Middelburg in particular sack wine but also pitch and tar, cables and tarred ropes from the Baltic. Trade with the Low Countries was however always liable to disruption on account of the war there.

 

……………………………………………………………………………….

 

Trade with the ports of Western France only graduaIly recovered from their low point in 1583-84. ln 1580-81,209 says had been exported there but this total was not exceeded until 1588-89 when 471! says were exported from Southampton to these ports. To an extent this disruption may have been due to the dangers caused to shipping by the renewal of piracy in this area after 1585. Arnoul le Clercq and Mathieu Sohier had played an important rloe in this trade before they left Southampton in 1583 but generally the consignments sent to La Rochelle and Bordeaux before 1588-89 were exported by substantial Southampton merchants such as John Crooke and George Heaton. Sohier did, however, still continue to export some cloths, as did Richard Etuer, through Southampton although he was now resident in London. The refugees' share of the 'new drapery' cloths which were exported to these ports graduaIly increased so that by 1590-91 they were responsible for 66.8 percent of the says exported to the Western French ports and by 1593-94 this had increased to 81.4 percent of says. Le Mercier began again to export cloths to these ports front 1587-88 and the totals increased to 165 says by 1593-94. However by this date other refugee merchants such as Claude Moutonnier and Pierre le Gay had also begun to export significant quantities of the 'new draperies' to these ports. Other members of the French cornmunity also exported smaIler quantities. For example Jean Hersent exported 145 says to La Rochelle in 1593-94, Balthasar des Maistres exported 86 says, Charles Heslin 60 says, Daniel Seulin 27 says and Peter Pochι exported 16 says. The latter four merchants sent aIl of the cloths which they exported during that year to La Rochelle.

 

La Rochelle was certainly the principal destination for 'new drapery' exports in Western France, with 1,120 of the 1,185 says exported to these ports being sent to that city. .A variety of cloths was exported to La Rochelle by English merchants but those exports front Southampton seem to have been particularly prized. The trade however remained in the hands of English merchants with the cloths being sold to the La Rochelle merchants by commissionaires who were resident in the town. By the end of the sixteenth century one of these commissionaires was Charles Heslin. Heslin had become increasingly involved in exporting cloths to Western France and by January 1599 had migrated to La Rochelle. ln 1624 Daniel Hersent had two resident factors in La Rochelle. The settlement of an agent in the town perhaps reflects the importance of this cloth trade with La Rochelle for the refugee community by the end of the century.

 

While the trade in the 'new draperies' with La Rochelle prospered, the cross- Channel trade with the Northern French ports of Normandy declined. Only in 1593-94 did the total number of gays exceed the totals reached in 1580-81 and even this was below the peak of 319,5 gays in 1578-79. In that year 62 percent of the total number of say exported were sent to Northern French ports but in 1593-94 they accounted for a mere 8.2 percent of say exports.In 1588-89 no cloths at all were recorded as exported to these ports perhaps as a result of the royal proclamation forbidding exports not only to Norman ports but also to those of Picardy and Brittany.

 

………………………………………………………………….

 

Conclusion

The refugee merchants clearly made a substantial contribution to Southampton's overseas trade in the second half of the sixteenth century. While there were a number of small traders who regularly engaged in the cross-Channel tradee, the principal benefit to Southampton's economy came from a very small group of prominent merchants: Arnoul le Clercq, Mathieu Sohier and Jean le Mercier. In importing goods to Southampton, these merchants were generally engaged in a similar trade to the indigenous Southampton merchants. However their most important contribution was in the development of a new export trade, the 'new draperies'. These merchants rarely encroached upon the types of goods exported by Southampton merchants. Refugee merchants were responsible for on average about 70 percent of the says exported from Southampton between 1573 and 1580. The merchants' contribution to Southampton's overseas trade was however tempered by war and plague as …………………..

 

………………………………………………………………………………

 

Initially some members of the stranger communities in London and Sandwich retumed to the Netherlands to purchase yarn. One Cool Boye often returned to Tournai while a refugee from Sandwich went to purchase yarn at Tourcoing. A certain Franηois Ente, who had been banished from the Netherlands, had been seen buying yarn in Armentiθres. There is no evidence to suggest that the refugees in Southampton made similar journeys to the Netherlands to purchase yarn, perhaps because of the distances involved. Arnoul le Clercq, Mathieu Sohier, Augustin de Beaulieu, Jean de Beaulieu and Robert Cousin occasionally imported sacks of wool, but there is no evidence about where these sacks originated. At Norwich small quantities of finer grades of wool were imported but generally these seem to have been brought to the city by sea from London.

 

…………………………………………………………………………………

 

Evidence of this entrepreneur/merchant form of industrial organisation can also be seen in the Southern Netherlands as weIl as in the manufacture of the 'new draperies' in England.

 

Two forms of organisation can be discerned in the production of the 'new draperies' in Southampton. Initially the 'new draperies' were manufactured by households, a group of workmen organised under their master. By the early seventeenth century, merchants as weIl as those involved in the finishing processes, bought cloth which was dyed and finished before being exported. This form of organisation of the cloth industry may indeed have existed from the establishment of the community. Refugees such as le Clercq, Sohier and de Beaulieu were not only actively involved in the town's overseas trade, exporting the 'new draperies', but also manufactured these cloths. ln Valenciennes, from where these men had originated, the wealthier marchands de saye seem to have operated their own workshops as weIl as trading in the finished cloths. The entrepreneur/merchant system was weIl established by the early seventeenth century. Entrepreneurs such as Jean Rochefort and Robert le Page, were involved in the manufacture of the 'new draperies', as weIl playing a prominent foie in the town's overseas trade.

…………………………………………………………………………….

 

In 1584 a delegation was sent from the French Church which included Walerand Thevelin, Mathieu Sohier, Guillaume Hersent and Pierre le Gay to congratulate Home's successor, Thomas Cooper, on rus appointment as Bishop of Winchester. They asked the Bishop to continue to look favourably on maintaining their church as rus predeηessor had done.

 

The provincial churches therefore seem to have enjoyed a degree of independence before the adoption of the single discipline and the regular meeting of colloquies. The churches occasionally sought advice from London or else other churches might request assistance or information. The colloquies however became more influential and the refugee churches came to be bound by their decisions. The brethren of So:uthampton were urged by the Colloquy in 1581 to visit Rye 'pour coriger tels vices qu'ils rangent a la Discipline comme les autres Eglises'. In 1610, the church was rebuked for failing to introduce mereaux (tokens) for those who were to be admitted to the Lord's Supper after this had been agreed upon by the colloquy. The decline of the church's independence clearly coincided with the congregation's increasing financial dependence on the Threadneedle Street Church.

 

The exile churches had long standing links with the continental churches, these contacts seem to have been closer with the Walloon churches in the Netherlands than with the Reformed churches in France. Anthoine Lescaillet represented the Walloon churches at the Synod of Dordrecht in 1578 and at Middelburg in 1581.58 There is no record of a minister being sent to the meetings of the French National Synods; their contact with the exile churches was limited and generally confined to the French church in London. The Frenchspeaking provincial churches generally looked to the Netherlands whereas in London the French influence was much stronger. The colloquies sought to establish their position vis ΰ vis the continental churches, with appeals that these churches should not recognise those who retumed to the continent without a testimony from their churches. The colloquy even wrote to the Synods of France and the Low Countries 'pour rafrκchir la memoire de l'union que nous avons avec eus en Doctrine et gouvernement de l'Eglise,.

 

In Southampton the church was govemed by the consistory which maintained discipline within the community. The consistory had been formed before the first administration of the Lord's Supper in December 1567 and may have existed as early as September 1567 when Robert Home referred in a letter to the 'minister and eldres of that churche'. There is only a partial record of the membership of the consistory but initially there seem to have been five eIders and two deacons. The number of deacons may have increased because in 1589 there is a reference to 'two of the deakens of the frenche churche'. By the early eighteenth century there were three deacons and four eIders, who were bath members of the consistory until the office of deacon was abolished in 1706. Besides the consistory there is a single refer- ence to a 'Lecteur' in Southampton in 1618.

 

The consistory was composed of the most prominent members of the exile community. At different rimes the leading refugee merchants (Arnoul le Clercq, Mathieu Sohier, Jean le Mercier, Pierre le Gay and Jean Hersent) were all members of the consistory. They had the wealth and status to provide the

community with the necessary leadership through the consistory . However

this fairly oligarchical composition should perhaps be expected in such a small community. There was also a remarkable degree of consistency in the compo- sition of the consistory; for example, Guillaume Hersent is recorded as being a member of the consistory in 1573, 1580, 1584 and bis son Jean Hersent was recorded as a member in 1589, 1598, 1606, 1610 and 1615. The initial mem- bers of the consistory were predominantly Walloon: Jehan le Mesureur (who had been a member of the Valenciennes proto-consistory in 1561), Arnoul le Clercq, Mathieu Sohier aIl originated from Valenciennes and were in fact cousins. Marc le Blanc who was a deacon also came from Valenciennes while Anthoine Jurion, an eIder, came from Hainaut. Although the departure of le Clercq and Sohier from Southampton in c. 1583 undoubtedly resulted in some changes in the composition of the consistory, the Walloon influence continued. By 1589, Pierre le Gay, Jean le Mercier and Vincent Nιrin of Valenciennes had become members of the consistory. Although the Walloon character of the consistory was retained through such figures, French refugees did become members of the consistory. The earliest being Gaspard Desert of Dieppe who was recorded as an eIder in 1573; the Hersents, Estienne Latelais and Claude Moutonnier are further examples.

 

……………………………………………………………………….

 

Marriage was another area of concern for the consistory. The procedures for the betrothal, the reading of the banns and the wedding were aIl carefully defined by des Gallars' Discipline and later by the Synod of Emden in 1571. In particular the need for obedience to one's parents and the need for their consent in the case of minors was emphasised. Marriages contracted without permission were declared void.

 

The Southampton consistory had to deal with several disputes concerning betrothals. ln 1580 Jan le Vasseur and Perronne Jorre were betrothed in the house of the Mayor, Bernard Courtmill, in the company of the Archbishop's Lieutenant, Mathieu Sohier, Richard Etuer and Jan Ric. The couple made their promises of marriage after the invocation of the name of God by Walerand Thevelin, then their banns were to be read on three Sundays, following the established custom. However when the marriage took place three months later, the entry commented 'deuant que le presche fut acheuι s'en fuit hors le temple, et la Ville, et le pais, Abandonnant sa femme. Mariage fet par Justice et force du costι de Jan'……

………………………………………………………………………………………….

 

Privateering persisted in the Southampton area into the 1590s, attracting on occasion merchants and members of the local gentry, such as Sir Henry Ughtred, and became an important element of the town's cornmercial life.There are however few references to the continuing links between the refugee cornmunity and privateering. A certain Sohier of Rye, perhaps the brother of Mathieu Sohier, combined trading with La Rochelle and the Spanish peninsula with spying and privateering. He was given letters permitting him 'to goe to the coast of Spaine to discover there the preparacon by sea which we thought a thinge verie necessarie for manie respects'. Sohier had however abused his letters of safe-passage by attacking several French ships and then using the letters to avoid arrest. In 1577 a dispute arose concerning Machuel Massicot who was described as being a Southampton merchant stranger, who had redeemed a ship together with its cargo which had been taken by privateers to St. Helen's Point off the Isle of Wight. Generally the refugee merchants, in particular Jean le Mercier, were more actively involved in the purchase of prize goods and also smuggling goods from Northern France.

…………………………………………………………………………..

 

….. according to an ordinance from the Corporation in 1553 strangers were obliged to sell canvas in that hall. The refugees may have been required to sell their cloth in some other hall for in 1574 the Court Leet complained that Mathieu Sohier, Arnoul le Clercq and 'others that make serge and estamell Dot to sell the same by Retaile for we are enformed that they doo se1l many & dyvers tymes by retaile'. The allegation was repeated in 1575. The complaints may relate to some unidentified regulations concerning the sale of the 'new draperies' or may simply reflect the more general hostility about the retail sale of goods by 'strangers".

 

……………………………………………………………………………….

 

…. The concem to prevent the erosion of the town's privileges led the Corporation to pursue a legal action against a London merchant and in 1607 to obtain an Act of Parliament which confirmed a charter of Henry VI, in particular 'restrayninge aIl Marchants not beinge free of the Liberties of ci the said Towne, to buy or to sell any manner of Merchandize within the Same Liberties therof'. None of the French community contributed towards the legal costs for obtaining this statute.

 

The Corporation was however prepared to sell licences to members of the French community to aIlow them to pursue trades from which they were  excluded under the terms of the original settlement. Furthermore licences were sold that permitted the refugees to breach the town ordinances. Mathieu Sohier paid 40s in 1582-83 'for licence to sell certaine myllstonnes' and in 1571-72, l0s was 'Re. of a frentche man for lysens to sell three tonns of ffrentche wynns which he could not sell in the Towne'. Pierre Thieudet paid 40s in 1572-73 'for lycencinge him to open bis shoppe windowes'. Probably the most significant concession was granted to Jean le Mercier who was fined in July 1587 'for that he had solde certaine canvais and raisons & browne paper beinge forraine bought and solde to Bartholomew yatt of newberrye and to divers other & for leaue to sell freelye tyll michelmas by the consent of the whole magestratts'. Mercier was fined £6 13s 4d; during the following mayoralty, £6 13s 4d was received from Mercier 'for a fine'. These fines seem to have, in effect, acted as a licence to trade although the payments are not recorded in every year. This compounding is confirmed in 1588-89, when it was noted that le Mercier's payment gave him leave to buy and sell his commodities as in Mr. Studley's time.

…………………………………………………………………………..

 

Although there were some wealthy members of the French church such as Jean de Beaulieu, Mathieu Sohier and Arnoul le Clercq, they do not appear to have forged links with the burgesses beyond their business contacts.

……………………………………………………………………………..

 

The lay subsidy returns provide a clearer impression of the distribution of the refugees. ln 1571 the wealthiest refugees were scattered around the town: Jean de Beaulieu and Robert Cousin lived in the ward of Holy Rood; Emery Durant and Jan de Bavais in the ward of St. Lawrence and Gilles Seulin in the ward of AlI Saints. A similar pattern can be seen in the exile community at Norwich. The wealthier members of the community seem to have lived amongst the wealthier native inhabitants, although there were exceptions: Mathieu Sohier and Arnoul le Clercq bath resided in the ward of SS. Michael & John where some of the poorest members of the community lived. Twenty-seven aliens were recorded as merely paying a polI contribution in the lay subsidy. This ward also contained the highest number of undertenants and so presumably the cheapest accommodation. There were also more substantial properties within the ward including the West Hall, which Mathieu Sohier leased at £12 per annum from 1570. In fact, Mathieu Sohier was recorded as having six undertenants in this ward in 1578 and 1579.76 By 1599 the wealthier members of the community were similarly scattered around the town but the poorer members of the community had also corne to live in the ward of Holy Rood (24 aliens were recorded as making only polI contributions) as well as the ward of SS. Michael & John (15 polI contributions).

Relations between the refugee community and their hasts therefore seem to have been relatively cordial. Yet curiously when the Queen visited Southampton for several days in 1591, the refugees were for reasons unknown not able to gain access to the Queen in order to thank her for the protection which she had afforded the community and were obliged to express their thanks outside the town. The Queen 'respondit fort humainement louant Dieu de œ qu'il luy donnoit puissance de recueillir et faire bien aux poures estrangers, et disant qu'elle scauoit bien que les prieres desdits seruoyent beaucoup sa Conseruation'.

…………………………………………………………………………………..

 

Exiles also remembered their relatives and property overseas when it came to drawing up their wills. Robert Cousin bequeathed to his sister living in Tournai £200 together with 'my bedd furnished, and the moictie of aIl the lynnen that serveth for to' be used in my howse'. Other refugees claimed property that they had left overseas and so continued to bequeath it in their wills, although their estates may weIl have been confiscated by the Conseil des Troubles. Gilles Seulin referred in his will to a farmn in Hainaut and further references to property overseas were made by Guillaume Coppin and Mathieu Sohier in wills drawn up after they had migrated from Southampton. lndeed Jane Seneschal gave her son power of attorney to recover property at Armentiθres in 1576.

…………………………………………………………………………..

 

Five marriages were recorded as having taken place in the parish churches. The first such marriage took place in 1585 and may be attributed to the community's temporary lack of a rninister. The children from this marriage were baptised in the French church between 1588 and 1596. The baptisms of the sons of another couple married outside the French Church were recorded in the church's register, suggesting that the couple were reconciled with the church. However, there is no further reference in the Registre to the three other such marriages. Pierre Thieudet obtained a marriage licence in order to marry Elizabeth Clement of Dibden in 1609, but there is no reference to the marriage in the records of the French church.

 

Although language was a significant barrier between the townspeople and the refugees, it bas been suggested that it could also provide an indicator of the gradual integration of the French community. This can be exarmined through the language used in wills, although wills can be problematic as they are not always written by the testator; Walerand Thevelin, for example, occasionally acted as a scribe. The wills of Jane Sohier [Jehanne de Caignoncle] (1569), Francois Bourgayse (1583) and Georgette Loys (1583) were aIl written in French. The will of Anthoine Jurion (1578) was translated from French by John Vovert in Southampton while Dionysius le Blanq translated into English the will of Robert Cousin in 1584. It is interesting to note that the will of Gilles Seulin for which Walerand Thevelin had acted as the amanuensis in 1583 survives in the records of the Prerogative Court of Canterbury in English without any note that it had been translated. Later wills tended to be written in English, although the wills of Jean Rochefort (1606) and Robert le Page (1612) were both written in French. Rochefort had only joined the French Church in December 1594. The will of Mathieu Sohier, one of the initial settlers in Southampton, was also written in French in 1593 after he had rnigrated to London.lol Perhaps the use of French was more common in a large community such as existed at London, than in Southampton.

………………………………………………………………………….

 

These WaIloon and French distinctions survived in Southampton for a long time. At first this was no doubt due to the domination of the close-knit WaIloon oligarchy. Arnoul le Clercq and Mathieu Sohier were not only the leading refugee merchants but they also played an important rτle in the religious life of the community as members of the consistory. Although the Walloon influence was weakened by their departure and the influx of French refugees, it still persisted.16 The distinction between the WaIloon and French refugees was most clearly identified in the community's marriage patterns.

……………………………………………………………………………

 

The refugee merchants played a significant rτle in the town's overseas trade. Although they could not compete with the wealthiest Southampton merchants, exiles such as Arnoul le Clercq, Mathieu Sohier and Jean le Mercier not only contributed to the town's established trade, they also opened up new areas of trade. These merchants dominated the exports of the 'new draperies' and developed markets for these cloths in Western France.

1604 marks a tuming-point for the Southampton community. The exiles had played an active roIe in the town's commercial life although by the early seventeenth century they no longer dominated the 'new draperies'. As in other communities, the process of assimilation and the retum of exiles to the continent, served steadily to weaken the community. This decline accelerated after 1604, probably in part due to the impact of the plague epidemic of 1604 which resulted in more than 150 deaths. In spite of the influx of refugees from the Ile de Rι in 1628, by 1635 there were only an estimated thirty-six members of the congregation. The church had been experiencing financial difficulties since about 1610 and during the first half of the seventeenth century became increasingly dependent on the Threadneedle Street church for financial support.

 

The weakness of the Southampton church was revealed by their response to the attacks made by Archbishop Laud upon the privileges of the foreign churches. Laud had a general policy to establish total religious conformΞty in the Anglican Church, and he regarded the quasi-independent 'stranger' churches as an anachronism hich merely served to encourage the English Puritans. In April 1634, representatives of the exile churches of Kent (Canterbury, Sandwich and Maidstone) were summoned and questioned as to their liturgy, the number of their members who had been born in England and whether or not these members attended their parish church. A synod of aIl the exile churches was held in order to discuss Laud's attack upon their privileges. The Southampton church lacked the money to send a delegate to this meet- ing.

 

ln June 1635, the Archbishop's Vicar-General, Sir Nathaniel Brent, visited the French church in Southampton and questioned the minister, Daniel Sauvage. As in the case of the 'stranger' churches in Kent, he was questioned about the church's liturgy and how many members of the church were born in England. Of the fifteen heads of families who attended the church only six were aliens, the remainder were natives of England. Brent therefore ordered these natives to attend their parish churches. The congregation briefly resisted but in October obeyed Brent's order. Southampton was the only foreign church which submitted to Laud's attack upon their privileges.

 

The status quo was restored on Laud's downfall and Sauvage continued to serve the church until his death in 1655. By then the French church must have seemed like a relic from a by-gone age for it had lost much of its raison d'κtre. The community which it had been designed to serve had faded away as members drifted back to the continent or entered the local parish churches. There was little need for a separate church conducting services in the French language and the paucity of entries in the Registre are suggestive of a congregation in terminal decline. The sudden influx of French Huguenots, fleeing from the religious persecution of Louis XIV from the 1660s transformed the circumstances of the French church in Southampton.

It is perhaps ironic that the refugees, so keenly sought by the town in 1567 and who had made such an important contribution to the economy of the town, should have left so little to remind us of their passage. Even the street names such as French Street and Rochelle Lane recall the presence of the medieval French-speaking community. Few of those who today visit the French church at God's House will be aware that the first Calvinists in Southampton were not Huguenots but Walloon Netherlanders who hailed from the cities of Valenciennes and Tournai.

 


retour chez les SOHIER     back to the SOHIER    terug naar de SOHIER



Rentabilisez efficacement votre site