The policy of Edward IV in the light of English parliamentary legislation

Portnov Aleksandr Aleksandrovich Postgraduate student; Faculty of History; Lomonosov Moscow State University 31a Stroiteley Ave., Ivanovo, Ivanovo region, 153040, Russia 12Alex06@mail.ru Other publications by this author

Introduction

The XIV – XV centuries were the time of the emergence of capitalist relations in Europe. The growth of commodity production, the emergence of early forms of capitalist manufacture, and the expansion of international trade marked the transition period from the Middle Ages to Modern Times. The reign of Edward IV in England coincided with this transitional period, which was reflected in his parliamentary legislation.

In general, oddly enough, the completed concept of the history of the English economy in the period we are interested in was put forward not by English, but by domestic medievalists. The first Soviet researcher who devoted himself to the study of the Wars of the Roses was E.V. Kuznetsov. After analyzing the activities of Parliament under Edward IV and Richard III (i.e. from 1461 to 1485), he came to the conclusion that "out of 69 [laws] passed by seven parliaments, 39 were devoted to various issues of industrial production and trade. Most of the laws (26) were introduced for the first time. Only 12 [laws] The Yorkists reproduced the parliamentary acts of their predecessors in their entirety or with changes that were not of fundamental importance..."^{[5, 190]}.

At the same time, he assessed quite accurately and without excessive idealization the entire inconsistency of the economic policy of the Yorks, who, on the one hand, contributed to the genesis of capitalism, and on the other, by virtue of tradition, clung to the old forms of economic organization ^{[5, 200]}. In general, E.V. Kuznetsov comes to the conclusion that it was under Edward IV that England began to turn from a feudal monarchy into an absolutist one. Edward already ruled as an absolute monarch, an alliance with artisan circles, merchants and manufacturers allowed him to cope with the baronial opposition, and the parliamentary legislation of 1461-1485 became the basis for the economic policy of the Tudors ^{[5, 200]}.

V.V. Shtokmar also, assessing Edward IV, notes that unlike his Lancastrian predecessors, who relied on the nobility, which the researcher associates with the feudal reaction, this king relied on the merchants and urban strata ^{[7, 68-69]}. Under Edward, English trade flourished, largely due to the personal participation of the king in it and his close relations with London merchants, who provided him with loans on very favorable terms – at 6% per annum, instead of 30% under Henry VI^{[7, 68]}.

In a later work, V.V. Shtokmar recognizes him as taking concrete steps to strengthen the royal power and the English economy: "In internal administration, the English king sought first of all to convene parliament as rarely as possible, and tried to make do with single incomes replenished as a result of confiscations and French pensions"^{[10, 119]}.

E.V. Gutnova gave Edward IV a much tougher and unflattering assessment, who believed that the XV century was a time of concentration of power in the hands of magnates ^{[3, 71]}. The researcher directly calls Edward IV a protege of such magnate cliques. Nevertheless, despite all the criticism, E.V. Gutnova recognizes Edward's right to be called the first absolute monarch of England. The characteristics of his economic policy are in many ways similar to the position of V.V. Shtokmar, with the only difference that E.V. Gutnova recognizes that a significant protectionist tilt in the economy in England occurred already under the Lancasters, and the Yorks played a largely negative role, combining protectionism with reactionary manorial policy ^{[3, 74]}.

Some contribution to the study of England in the XV century. E.V. Kuznetsov's students contributed, for example, V.I. Zolotov, who, analyzing the role of "gentlemen" (i.e., the "middle stratum" - non-noble landowners, merchants, officials, etc.) in XV century England, gives the following assessment to the royal council of Edward IV ^{[4, 194-195]}. All this testifies, in the author's opinion, to the change in the nature of royal power in the XV century.

Among the recent works, the works of E.D. Brown should be highlighted, both biographical and specifically historical in nature. In her analysis of the personality and reign of Edward IV, she concludes that "the potential of royal power during the reigns of Edward IV and Richard III increased significantly. So, if in the reign of Henry VI it was said about a paper signed by the king that "anyone can get it for a noble," then documents addressed to one of the nobles and signed by kings from the York dynasty, as a rule, entailed the execution of an order"^{[2, 122-123]}. In addition, in the perception of the gentry, already in the 1460s, Edward IV was undoubtedly a more authoritarian monarch than the kings of the Lancaster dynasty who preceded him ^{[2, 110]}.

We find interesting the article not by historians, but by lawyers T.G. Mineeva and V. B. Romanovskaya "Magna Carta and the legislation of the English Parliament of the Late Middle Ages", in which the authors, analyzing the statutes of the English Parliament, come to the conclusion that since the 20s of the XV century. kings are increasingly turning to the provisions of the Magna Carta concerning protection of the rights of the individual, and since 1429, the tradition has completely ceased, according to which every resolution of parliament was opened by confirming that the provisions of the charter remain in force ^{[6, 190]}. This is partly due, in their opinion, to the "victory of absolutism."

A student of E.V. Kuznetsov, T.B. Sorokina, in an article on the role of the northern counties in the Wars of the Roses, notes that under the Yorks, especially under Richard III, many people from the north joined the ruling elite, which contradicts the well–known thesis about his support for the Lancasters ^{[8, 126]}.

These are briefly the main milestones that medieval studies has passed in the study of Edward IV's economic policy. Although the economic history of medieval England has been studied quite well, especially by Soviet historians, we nevertheless need to study it in more depth.

Source review

In studying the economic policy of Edward IV, we decided to rely on the data of the parliamentary statutes, i.e. the official laws of the English Kingdom. There are a number of reasons for this – first of all, the official document is devoid of value judgments and aims to somehow reflect the real state of affairs in a distorted light. Thus, it gives us objective grounds for further conclusions. In addition, the statutes in their preamble often contain a description of the economic and political situation in which England was in the 60-70s of the XV century, which allows us to judge the causes and prerequisites of certain measures taken by the royal government. Finally, the statutes directly contain the so–called "declaration of intent", in other words, the economic course, the program of measures that Edward IV set for himself. That is, we can create for ourselves an exhaustive picture of the king's economic policy.

But with all this, we have to say about the shortcomings that complicate our work. First of all, describing the initial state of affairs and a specific program of transformation, the statutes, for objective reasons, are silent about the results of its implementation. The only basis on which one can judge the consequences of Edward IV's economic policy is the data of later parliamentary acts, which give a definite idea of the changes in the country. In addition, it is problematic to assess whether all the new parliamentary resolutions were respected or sabotaged – the answer to this question can only be obtained by attracting sources of a different kind.

In total, during the reign of Edward IV (1461-1470 and 1471-1483), Parliament was convened 6 times, while 9 statutes were adopted – the 2nd, 3rd and 4th parliaments managed to adopt two statutes during their activities, the rest one at a time. The issues they raised could be very different – from the confiscation of the possessions and titles of the leaders of the hostile Lancastrian party to the use of various types of trees in the manufacture of arrows.

We will be primarily interested in the Parliament of 1462-1465 and the two statutes it adopted – 1463 and 1464. Both of them are almost entirely devoted to economic issues and therefore will allow us to evaluate the activities of Edward IV's policy in this area.

It should be noted that the language of office work at that time was French – until 1485, no official parliamentary document was drawn up in English, and until 1460, sometimes statutes were issued in Latin. In fact, until the 19th century, English historians who addressed the issue of the evolution of the medieval parliament had to learn a foreign language, moreover, very different from modern French. In addition, there was no single edition of parliamentary statutes, since they were often part of other documents of different orientation and were not systematized.

It was not until July 19, 1800 that the first Recording Commission was established, chaired by Charles Abbott, which was supposed to collect all English legislation up to 1714, as well as the legislation of Scotland up to 1707. In just 37 years, 6 commissions have been created, but all of them are traditionally referred to by a common collective term – Record Commission. The Commission worked extremely slowly, which more than once became the subject of parliamentary hearings, at which it was accused of inactivity and corruption – only in 1837 its work was completed.

One of the results of the commission's activities was the publication, edited by John Wraithby in 1810-1825. "The Statutes of the Realm" - the complete collection of the statutes of the English Parliament for the XIII – XVIII centuries. in 9 volumes, as well as individual volumes with their alphabetical and chronological list. At the same time, a tremendous amount of work was done to translate the statutes from French and Latin into English.

The second volume of The Statutes of the Realm is devoted to the period of interest to us, covering the reigns of Richard II, Henry IV, Henry V, Henry VI, Edward IV, Richard III and Henry VII (1377-1509). Alas, we could not find its translation into Russian. In this regard, we have undertaken the work of self–translation of the statutes of Edward IV - the original English versions are provided as notes to all quotations from them.

It should be borne in mind that the English language of the first quarter of the XIX century differs from the one we are familiar with, just as modern Russian has significant differences with the language of Pushkin. For example, the word "impeachment" at that time did not mean a legal procedure for removing the leadership from office, but simply an obstacle to something. In this sense, it is also used in the text of the statutes. This creates certain difficulties and inaccuracies in the translation of this source.

The statutes set a strict chronological framework for our study: April 29, 1463 (adoption of the second statute) – January 21, 1464 (adoption of the third statute). However, in reality we will cover a much broader historical period – the beginning will actually be March 4, 1461, i.e. the date of Edward IV's coming to power, and the final date is 1467, i.e. the adoption of the fourth statute. Some of the subjects that we will cover will have an end date of 1477-78.

Textile industry

On March 4, 1461, the Duke of York led an army into London and proclaimed himself King Edward IV. On June 28, when the supporters of the overthrown Lancaster dynasty were mostly defeated, the coronation ceremony took place. Since that time, the report of the 21-year reign of Edward IV begins, interrupted only once for six months by Lancastrians who tried to take revenge.

Parliament was last convened on October 7, 1460 and, according to some sources, was not dissolved until the overthrow of Henry VI. Already on May 23, 1461. Edward IV announces the convocation of a new parliament, which would already be loyal to York ^{[9, 223]}. Already on May 6, 1462, the parliament was dissolved, only for a decision to convene a new one on December 22.

The second Parliament of Edward IV became a landmark in many ways. First of all, he worked for almost two years – the first meeting was held on April 29, 1463, and the last on March 28, 1465. During this time, he issued two statutes at once, entirely devoted to economic issues. After the dissolution of this Parliament, a new one was not convened for two more years. Thus, the Parliament of 1463-1465 played a decisive role for the entire subsequent economic policy of Edward IV.

It should be noted that the role of Edward IV himself, both in the work of parliament and in general in the government of the country at that time, was apparently minimal. He became king at the age of 18, and he had never been prepared for this role by anyone. He remained in the memory of his contemporaries and descendants more as a brave warrior than as a sensible politician, and he preferred the company of women to state affairs. Apparently, in relation to the period 1461-1464, we can safely talk about the actual reign of Richard Neville, Earl of Warwick, nicknamed the "Kingmaker", who enjoyed great influence over his cousin, the king. From September 1464, the king began to gradually remove Warwick from government, while relying on relatives of his wife Elizabeth Woodville, which eventually led to Warwick's rebellion in July 1469. However, at least until 1466-1467. he remained the most powerful lord of the kingdom and continued to have a decisive influence on English politics.

Based on this, it can be assumed that it was Warwick who initiated the protectionist course in economic policy under Edward IV. Now that the preliminary remarks have been made, we can proceed to consider the specific activities of the first York on the throne of England.

Already in the second paragraph there is a completely exhaustive statement of what constituted the node of the entire English economy in the middle of the XV century:

"... The main and fundamental consumer item of the Kingdom of England consists in wool produced in the specified kingdom..."^{[1, 392]}.

Obviously, 6 years of the civil war could not but affect wool production. Actually, the statute sets itself the goal of correcting the flaws of previous years and restoring the industry to its former splendor:

"... Wool can permanently reside and remain within the said kingdom, as it can competently and intelligently serve the guild of cloth manufacturers of England and all its members and branches, whereby the cities, districts and villages of the said kingdom, which have fallen into great and deplorable desolation, ruin and decay due to idleness, perhaps by will By God's will, the places of residence will multiply, and through work they will restore their former happiness and prosperity..."^{[1, 392]}.

Modern science interprets the Wars of the Roses rather than as a destructive conflict. For example, the historian V.G. Ustinov evaluates the perception of these wars by the population of England in this way:

"Ordinary Englishmen cared very little about the Wars of the Roses. The troops did not devastate the area, did not rob, did not burn, did not kill. Of course, there have been cases of robberies, but they can be counted on one hand. With rare exceptions, large English cities were not systematically devastated and besieged. The Wars of the Roses were nothing compared to the Hundred Years' War, the consequences of which were felt in France for many decades after its completion"^{[9, 102-103]}.

Nevertheless, for people of that time, primarily Londoners, who had not known dynastic conflicts since the reign of the Lancastrians, the country seemed to be in "ruin and decline" after the first 6 years of hostilities. This can be explained if we remember that just 10 years before the British were defeated in the Hundred Years' War and in the minds of the British yesterday's brilliant empire, stretching from Scotland to the Loire and Guienne, was a pitiful sight. The more clearly we can assess the intentions of the royal government from the above lines. So, it unequivocally stated that the products of the English textile industry should become a source of wealth primarily for its producers (i.e. landowners, including the king and industrialists) and for the townspeople.

"... From the next feast of John the Baptist, neither a foreigner nor anyone for him, secretly or explicitly, should buy or transport in any way wool or wool substitute, skin removed from a dead or living sheep within the kingdom of England or Wales..."^{[1, 392]}.

This first protectionist measure in this statute actually drove all foreigners out of the domestic market of England, but it was not limited to that.

"... No foreigner or subject of another king, from the above-mentioned day, shall export wool, wool substitute, skin taken from a live or dead sheep produced on this side of the River Tees, to the north; on pain of confiscation of this wool..."^{[1, 392]}.

The products confiscated from the violators were divided into two parts:

"... One half of them should make a profit and be used by our aforementioned formidable ruler the king, and the other half should be used and make a profit to someone or those who find and legally prove that such a purchase, delivery, or transportation contradicts the specified decree"^{[1, 392]}.

The River Tees, which is mentioned in the statute, divided the counties of Durham and Yorkshire, so the "north" in the understanding of the English of the XV century is a relatively small territory of Northumberland and Durham.

The Yorks came to power under patriotic slogans, considering the Lancastrians to be a clientele of France, the living embodiment of which was the leader of the Lancastrian party, Queen Margaret of Anjou. After coming to power, Edward IV and Warwick began to implement their program, and the measures contained in the statute clearly contributed to the enrichment of English wool producers, including at the expense of foreigners.

In addition to purely protective measures, the government of Edward IV also proposed specific measures to improve the quality of products produced in England. The statute adopted in 1464 stated that the production of low-quality fabrics is one of the main problems of the economy:

"... For many years of the past, and now in our days, the craftsmanship of making fabrics and things necessary for it is and was so fraudulent, deceptive and false that the mentioned fabrics in other lands and countries had a low reputation to the great shame of our land"^{[1, 403]}.

The statutes quite clearly divide the products of the textile industry into 3 categories:

1. Broadcloth – cloth;

2. Straits – coarse woolen fabric;

3. Kerseys – kersey (a special kind of cloth produced in Yorkshire);

Since 1464, standards for the length and width of one batch of fabric have been introduced for each of these categories ^{[1, 403-404]}. There was also a ban on the use of certain materials for the production of fabrics:

"And <...> no person who will manufacture or act as a customer for the manufacture of any woolen fabric to sell after the mentioned holiday (the Day of the Release of the Apostle Peter from imprisonment - AP) should mix with the specified fabric or add to the specified fabric or wool from which the specified fabric will be made, lambs' wool, woolen combs or bast in any way..."^{[1, 404]}.

In order for this decision to be implemented, Edward IV introduced an extensive quality control system for manufactured products. The initial control was carried out, apparently, by the Alnager commission, the existence of which can be traced back to the reign of Edward I the Long-Legged (1272-1307), but interrupted in 1353 due to an increase in the volume of imports of fabrics. As we will see later, under Edward IV, imports were severely limited, which means that the activities of this commission became possible again. Rejected batches of fabric were marked with a lead seal, and those that passed quality control were marked with a double lead or "cloth" seal. Thus, the quality of the products remained on top. But there was also a second level of control, carried out directly by the Lord Treasurer.:

"It is prescribed and established that the Lord Treasurer of England will receive for a time the power and authority to check as many holders of the said seal (meaning cloth seal - AP) as he deems necessary, so that he does not make a single foreigner the said holder"^{[1, 405]}.

Thus, at the second level of control, all foreigners were cut off – a trait that undoubtedly characterizes Edward IV's textile industry policy as protectionist.

Foreign trade

"A characteristic feature of English trade in the XV century was the significant proportion of foreigners in it," E.V. Kuznetsov notes. – The most important positions in the English market were occupied by Hanseaticians, Italians, merchants from the Netherlands" ^{[5, 187-188]}.

This circumstance could not but worry the royal government, and it did everything possible to ensure that the income from English trade enriched the British in the first place.

The main feature of Edward IV's policy in the field of regulating foreign trade was the desire to control it as much as possible. First of all, the only place where wool produced in England could be exported was established:

"No shipment of the specified six should be transported by sea or transported to any other place in the specified kingdom (England – AP) or Wales, but only to the city of Calais"^{[1, 393]}.

Calais has been England's only possession on the continent since 1453. Accordingly, foreign trade with other European countries could be carried out only through it for purely geographical reasons. The Statute also consolidated this provision in a legal way, introducing penalties for the transportation of fabrics by sea from one region of England to another:

"And if any person or persons transport by sea wool grown in any locality or county of the said kingdom of England, then he will pay a fine and lose all this wool..."^{[1, 392]}.

Similarly, the export of wool to anywhere other than Kale was punishable:

"... No one after the mentioned holiday (John the Baptist Day – AP), secretly or explicitly, should transfer or transport, or negotiate the transfer or transportation of wool or wool substitutes from this kingdom of England or Wales to any other place except Calais ..."^{[1, 392]}.

The only exceptions to this rule were the northern lands – Northumberland, Cumberland, Westmoreland, as well as Durham, Richmondshire and Aldertonshire. Wool from these regions had to be shipped to Newcastle before being shipped by sea:

"No one after the said holiday shall transport a cargo of wool grown within any of the said counties of Northumberland, Cumberland and Westmorland, or within the said Bishopric of Durham, between the said rivers Tyne and Tees, or within the said counties called Richmondshire and Aldertonshire, except to the city of Newcastle"^{[1, 392]}.

Obviously, this was due to the fact that the northern counties traded mainly not with the continent, but with Scotland – thus, Newcastle became in fact the northern analogue of Calais.

In addition to the place where foreign trade was to be conducted, the statute also strictly regulated the method of exchange – traders of raw materials were ordered to sell it only for cash payment:

"... No trader of the mentioned raw materials in Calais, either personally or through other persons, should neither sell nor exchange wool or any other raw materials for the specified raw materials from the next day of St. Michael the Archangel, but must first or after receive and accept cash payment..."^{[1, 392]}.

But Edward IV and Warwick did not limit themselves to the method of payment, establishing a strict rule that at least half of the value of the goods sold had to be paid in English money:

"... Half (of the payment – AP) must be in the legally established money of England, platinum or ingots of silver or gold; and all those money duly imported into this kingdom of England, and platinum and ingots also duly received must be stamped at the mint in Calais"^{[1, 394]}.

This was supposed to increase the purchasing power of the English coin – the more in demand it would be, the more income the king would have, as an absolute monopolist on the minting of the English coin.

By the time Edward IV came to power, this was more than an urgent problem – the value of a penny had fallen relative to the value of the metal from which it was minted. To correct this, Edward, in parallel with the publication of the statute, ordered the minting of a new silver coin – 20% lighter than the old model. A new protectionist measure was supposed to remedy this situation.

In addition to exports, York's protectionist policy also regulated imports.

The main goods going to England were silk cloth, grain, as well as finished products – shoes, clothing, tools, jewelry, etc. The royal power had a special attitude towards each of these categories. For example, the import of silk fabrics, of which the Lombards were the main exporters, was completely prohibited, and any batch of silk imported into England was subject to confiscation:

"... If any Lombard or any other foreigner or naturalized foreigner smuggles or facilitates the transportation of silk products through trade in goods, then these silk products must be confiscated..."^{[1, 395-396]}.

In addition, such violators were fined 10 pounds:

"...And every seller of any of these things <...> must pay 10 pounds sterling for each violation..."^{[1, 396]}.

A year later, a new parliamentary statute banned the import of all fabrics produced abroad.:

"... All possible woolen fabrics made in any other region, imported into this kingdom of England and put up for sale in any part of this kingdom of England after the said feast of St. Peter, must be confiscated in favor of our said supreme lord the king"^{[1, 407]}.

For grain traders, the restrictions were not so strict – the statute only prohibited the transportation of small shipments of this product, apparently due to the size of the duty charged in this case. Moreover, the calculation was not based on the volume or weight of grain, but on its value: for example, the minimum amount that allowed grain to be transported to England was 6 shillings and 8 pence for a quarter of wheat (about 210 liters), 4 shillings for a quarter of rye and 3 shillings for a quarter of barley:

"... No person from the next day of St. John the Baptist shall carry or bring to any place or port of this kingdom, in the form of goods or otherwise, any wheat, rye or barley that is not grown in this country, or any island belonging to it, or is not grown in Ireland or Wales, at any time when a quarter of wheat does not exceed the price of six shillings and eightpence, a quarter of rye does not exceed the price of four shillings, and a quarter of barley three shillings in statutory coins of England within the place or port where such wheat, rye or barley were to be delivered; for efforts to confiscate such wheat, rye and barley, one half goes to our supreme ruler the king, and the other half to whoever finds such wheat, rye or barley"^{[1, 395]}.

The most interesting situation was with the import of finished products into the territory of England. The statute not only prohibited merchants from transporting it to England^{[1, 397]}, but also gave city officials the power to seize finished products:

"And also our Lord the King has determined and decreed, by consent and the above-mentioned basis, that the highest officials of the cities should have the power and authority to search for finished products to be produced by any foreign artisan, man or woman, or any other person or persons within the specified kingdom of England or Wales..."^{[1, 397-398]}.

Thus, the statutes severely limited the space of foreign trade, which was supposed to save domestic producers from competition, as well as raise the value of the British currency. All this generally corresponds to the general trend of Edward IV's protectionist policy.

Economics and foreign policy

The statutes allow us to trace the mutual influence of England's economic and foreign policy in 1461-1467, when it was still under the significant influence of Warwick, by a concrete example. From the example below, in particular, the motives for which the British government rebuilt the economy in a protectionist spirit will become clear.

The government of the "Kingmaker" pursued a pro-French policy, hoping to "link the Yorks by dynastic ties with the royal family of France. In this way, at least two important goals were achieved: Yorkist England received a powerful ally on the continent, and at the same time the possibilities of Marguerite d'Anjou to manipulate her family ties were neutralized"^{[9, 241]}. This was all the more important because the Lancastrian supporters were not completely defeated and continued to resist in the northern counties. However, rapprochement with France inevitably entailed a break with the traditional ally on the continent – Burgundy, which was hostile towards the French king. This gap was soon reflected in the economy.

Between the spring of 1463 and the summer of 1464, the Duke of Burgundy, Philip III the Good, issued a decree expelling English goods from the Burgundian markets, which was mentioned in the statute of Parliament:

"Since certain Declarations and Decrees in the form of a Statute always stand the test of time and are never subject to repeal, the proclamations of the Duke of Burgundy were later issued in part of the territories of Brabant, Holland and Zeeland and other seigniories that from that time on all woolen clothing and woolen yarn made and manufactured in the Kingdom of England should be they were expelled from the lands of the said duke"^{[1, 411]}.

The statute, departing from the norms of legal language, depicts the consequences of such a policy of the Burgundian court – the destruction of goods, the impoverishment of merchants, etc.:

"So after the said proclamation, no such (manufactured in England – AP) fabric or yarn should be bought, sold or distributed there, and if after the same time any fabric or yarn is found, then it should be burned as a prohibited thing, with some other prohibited types of fabrics, specified in the same proclamations and instructions; whereby, in all probability, manufacturers of woolen fabrics in this kingdom of England, such as weavers, clothiers, dyers, spinners, carders and yarn winders, and other persons engaged in the said manufacture of fabrics, as well as buyers and sellers of the same, should be deprived of professions and become so idle that it should provoke them to sin and a vicious life, so help them God"^{[1, 411]}.

Apparently, the reason for such a harsh measure was not only in the pro-French course of Warwick, but also in the decisions of the Parliament of 1463, which significantly limited the import of imported products to England, most of which were produced in the possession of the Duke of Burgundy. Nevertheless, already from the phrase "certain Declarations and Decrees in the form of a Statute <...> never subject to repeal" it is clear that the British were not going to change the provisions of the statute somehow. Moreover, the ban on the circulation of English goods in Burgundy caused an equally harsh reaction from Edward IV:

"... No resident of this kingdom, and no trader from Liege in England, shall bring or transfer, or secretly or explicitly facilitate the transportation, transfer or importation into this kingdom of England, Wales or Ireland in any way goods or cargoes grown, manufactured or manufactured in the lands and parts of Burgundy, Lorraine, Brabant, Lüneburg, Flanders, Artois, Hennegau, Holland, Zeeland, Namur, the marquisates of the Holy Roman Empire, Friesland, Mechelen, lands beyond the Meuse River, or any lands and seigneuries that the Duke holds or owns..."^{[1, 411]}.

The ban on the import of Burgundian goods was to remain in effect until the repeal of the proclamation of Philip III. Now we would call it a "war of sanctions."

Before the official announcement of this ban (which was planned to be carried out before March 18, 1464), imported goods were not subject to confiscation, but then a standard confiscation rule was to apply for 40 days, according to which the banned goods were divided equally between the king and the person who reported the violation of the ban. In the future, it was planned to introduce a more complex control procedure, which involved the resale of seized goods by official British institutions so that all profits went to the treasury.

Nevertheless, important reservations were made in the statute – realizing, apparently, that completely blocking imports from Burgundy would be ruinous for the English market, it left the possibility of goods from the Netherlands entering England through the hands of Hanseatic merchants:

"... This law, as well as no other law, statute or decree that has been issued or will be issued by the current parliament, should not cause harm, prejudice or humiliation to merchants from Germany belonging to the guild, commonly called the Hansa..."^{[1, 413]}.

"Even during the struggle for the throne, Edward IV often resorted to the help of Hanseatic cities, which gave him ships and money," V.V. Shtokmar notes on this occasion. - For this, the Hanseatic demanded from him the restoration of all privileges in trade <...> and exemption from customs duties, which was a clear violation of the interests of the English merchant class, and indicated an increased <...> the power of Edward IV, who could afford such a policy"^{[7, 68]}.

At the end of this story, it is worth noting only that after the French marriage of Edward IV was upset in 1464, the reverse process began – the rapprochement of England with Burgundy. In 1468, the wedding of Margaret of York, the sister of Edward IV, and the new Duke of Burgundy, Charles the Bold, took place. However, this no longer affected the economic course of the English government – as it was established, none of the provisions of the statute banning the import of goods from Burgundy was formally abolished. It was only in 1474-1475 that it was determined that Anglo-Burgundian trade could be conducted in the city of Middelburg ^{[1, 437]} in Flanders, and from 1477-1478 in a certain city of Barou ^{[1, 450]} in Brabant, which it is not possible to identify.

Thus, we can conclude from this story – in order to overcome the consequences of the civil war and strengthen the economy, the government of Edward IV and Warwick begins to introduce elements of protectionism in England. In addition to the pro-French course, this leads to an aggravation of relations with Burgundy, which prohibits the free sale of English products on its territory. In turn, England is already imposing sanctions on the products of the Burgundy industry, thereby making the protectionist course even tougher. As a result, the changed political situation leads to the resumption of friendly relations with Burgundy, but this has a minimal effect on economic policy – the protectionist policy has already been legislated and is not subject to curtailment.

Similarly, economics and foreign policy, mutually influencing each other, ensured the transition of England to the New Age.

Conclusion

In the course of the study, we came to the conclusion that the economic situation of England in the 1460s was not critical, however, in the face of defeat in the Hundred Years' War and the dynastic conflict, the government of Edward IV decided to carry out economic reforms aimed at raising the welfare of English producers, merchants and the king himself.

As part of the economic policy of the 1460s, all foreign traders were expelled from the domestic market of England, who, under threat of confiscation, were forbidden to buy and transport wool within England. In order to increase the competitiveness of British goods, quality standards and a complex system of monitoring their compliance were introduced. Strict limits were set for foreign trade – merchants from England were given the right to export their goods only to Calais, with the exception of several northern counties, the center of sales of which was Newcastle upon Tyne. In addition to the place of exchange, its method was also determined – merchants had to sell their goods only for cash, and half of it had to be expressed in English coin, which increased its purchasing power. A ban was imposed on the import of certain categories of goods into England (for example, silk, and then all types of fabrics, finished industrial products, etc.) and restrictions for others (for example, grain). In short, Edward IV's economic policy was protectionist in nature.

These measures were due not only to economic necessity, but also to a foreign policy factor – for example, the desire to establish peaceful relations with France led to a ban on the import of English goods to Burgundy and retaliatory measures to ban the import of Burgundian goods to England, which was not canceled during the reign of Edward IV, despite the improvement of relations between the two countries.

Thus, under Edward IV, major changes took place in the English economy. All this, coupled with his social transformations, the decrease in the role of parliament and the increase in the powers of the king, which was continued in the absolutism of the Tudors, characterizes him as a monarch of the transition period from the Middle Ages to Modern times, in the economy, in particular, expressed in the transition from feudalism to capitalism.