The Role of the Receiving Merchants

The answer lies in a small note, scribbled in one corner of the consolato. The document that was presented to the Consoli was a translation into Italian, the original being written in Spanish. The translation should have been accompanied by a sworn declaration by the translator as to its accuracy as well as the attestation of a certified notary.1 Addobbati and Dyble, ‘One hundred barrels of gunpowder’, p. 836. This translation, on the other hand, was simply signed by the translator, one ‘Aron di Samuel Israel’, who adds only that he had knowledge of both languages.2 ASP, CM, AC, 321-30 (30 August 1670), Consolato. A note in the margin records that ‘the original was returned to Niccolaio Pettinini, 13 September’, a fortnight after the conclusion of the case.3 Ibid. This was the same Niccolaio Pettinini who was chosen by the Consoli, along with Ludovico Tiezzi, to draw up the calculation for the Alice and Francis just ten days after the submission of the testimoniale, and on the very same day as the judgement.4 Addobbati and Dyble, ‘One hundred barrels of gunpowder’, p. 837. The original testimoniale had thus been ‘returned’ to a calculator who was not officially involved in the case until 30 August. This same calculator, according to official dating, had then managed to draw up the entire calculation in the space of a single afternoon. It is, in fact, strange that the calculator should have been in possession of the testimoniale at all. The function of the narrative document was to aid the Consoli in deciding whether absolution and Average should be awarded. Once this was done, the testimoniale no longer had a part to play: it was not used in the writing of the calculation which could be drawn up using the judgement with the final awarded figure and the bill of lading specifying the cargo onboard. The only logical conclusion to draw is that Pettinini must have been involved in the case from an earlier point, drawing up the calculation on the basis of the ship’s bill of lading while the Consoli were still officially deliberating. He had been given access to the ship’s paperwork earlier than the judgement, probably as soon as Dring arrived. Since he clearly had access to both the bill of lading and the consolato, it thus seems likely that it was he who had been responsible for depositing the testimoniale on 20 August, while Stephen Dring was waiting for permission to leave his ship.

It would have been impossible for Stephen Dring to have orchestrated these efforts alone on his arrival. He would not have had the local knowledge or contacts to engage the services of someone like Pettinini, nor in all likelihood the necessary language skills; he was, at any rate, officially confined to his ship until after the testimoniale had been deposited. It is thus extremely unlikely that he should have single-handedly set the case in motion by means of Pettinini just a day after his arrival. The most reasonable explanation for Pettinini’s early involvement – indeed, the most reasonable explanation for the speed of the case in general and its lack of proper form and rigour – is that, far from being adversaries to the master’s request, the receivers in Livorno were themselves coordinating it. They would have had more than a week’s notice of the incident – we know from a letter of the English consul, Thomas Clutterbuck, that news of the battle had arrived in Livorno by 11 August.5 TNA, State Papers Foreign, Tuscany, 1582–1780, SP 98, vol. 11, pp. 508–10, Thomas Clutterbuck to Arlington (11 August 1670). Robert Foot, the receiving merchant entrusted with the reception of the ship in Livorno by the owners, would thus have had plenty of time to contact other interested parties in the port, and would have been expecting some kind of GA payment or declaration.6 Addobbati and Dyble, ‘One hundred barrels of gunpowder’, p. 842. When Dring sailed into port on 19 August, Foot appears to have been ready to offer him a deal.

The exact nature of that deal can be reconstructed thanks to another case involving the same ship, preserved in the files of the Florentine lawyer, Andrea Capponi.7 ASF, Auditore dei Benefici Ecclesiastici poi Segretaria del Regio Diritto, 5682, document 40. The day after the submission of the testimoniale, as the last of the cargo was being unloaded into little boats and conveyed to the warehouses of the receivers, the customs authorities decided to perform a spot check on the boat of one Tommaso del Frate. Hidden in the bottom of del Frate’s vessel they found 14 packs of hides and 3 packs of wax, all undeclared. The boatman was arrested and imprisoned for fraud and the merchandise was sequestered. On 1 September – the day after the declaration of GA had been officially made by the Consoli – the English merchant Humphrey Sidney came forward and admitted to being the intended recipient, thus saving the boatman from serious reprisals.8 Addobbati and Dyble, ‘One hundred barrels of gunpowder’, p. 842. A day later, Gisberto Seale and Carlo Benassai did likewise. This attempt to defraud the customs house could not have been attempted without the agreement of the master, Stephen Dring, who would have been supervising the unloading. Nor was it likely the only item that was being imported fraudulently. Wax and hides are heavy items. They were probably stored lower down in the ship’s hold and were among the last things to be unloaded. By the time the authorities had apprehended the unfortunate boatman – perhaps alerted by the suspiciously ponderous movement of his covertly loaded vessel – a quantity of lighter undeclared merchandise had no doubt made it into the port undetected. The nature of the exchange is clear: the Livornese receivers had facilitated and supported Dring’s GA claim in return for his cooperation in evading customs charges.9 It should be remembered that the free port did not fully abolish import and export duties until 1676. Though one could store goods for up to a year without paying customs if they were destined for re-export, this may not have been the English merchants’ intention. See Frattarelli Fischer, ‘Livorno 1676’; Tazzara, The Free Port of Livorno, pp. 107–45.

The irony of the case of the Alice and Francis – an ‘exorbitancy’ contrary to the laws of England – is that it was actually resolved exactly as it would have been in London, that is by private agreement between master and merchants.10 Addobbati and Dyble, ‘One hundred barrels’, p. 843. Somewhat ironic, too, was the Tuscan defence of their own procedures which, by their very laxity, had inadvertently facilitated an English attempt to defraud the native customs authorities. The agreement benefitted the English master and the English receivers in the port more than anybody. The master secured personal compensation for his injuries and exertions, while his vessel was repaired almost entirely at merchant expense. What the Livorno-based merchants lost in larger GA contributions they then made back in evaded customs charges. The losers in this deal were those merchants in other centres who paid an inflated GA contribution (except those of Alicante, who, as we have seen, paid nothing) and the Tuscan state, which lost out on customs revenue. For all the ostensible differences between the private ordering in England and the very official and public procedures in Tuscany, these were less substantial in practice than one might think.