The encyclopedia · Strategy & Leadership · Strategic decision · 1614–1617
They tried to force cloth dyeing home by monopoly — the Dutch boycotted the trade
England sold undyed cloth; the Dutch dyed it and resold it. Cockayne took a monopoly to dye at home and banned white-cloth export. The Dutch boycotted it.
Company of Merchant Adventurers of London
From historyHistory and classical literature, legend included. An analogy to think with, not a modern precedent.
What it means today
Forcing vertical integration by monopoly and export ban works only while your buyers have no alternative; the moment they can refuse, the 'upgraded' trade collapses.
What happened
Until the 1610s England wove the finest wool cloth but lacked the finishing skills, so it exported undyed 'white' cloth to Holland, where the Dutch dyed and dressed it and sold it back at a profit. Alderman William Cockayne, then governor of the Eastland Company, proposed to capture that finishing profit at home. He obtained an exclusive patent, the King took the monopoly on selling home-dyed cloth, and a royal proclamation banned the export of white cloth — the King even seizing the Merchant Adventurers' charter that had empowered them to export it.
The Dutch and German cities retaliated by banning the import of all English dyed cloth. Commerce was thrown into confusion: Cockayne could sell only at home, and English dyed cloth was worse finished and dearer than the Dutch product. The weavers clamoured as the trade stalled. The King first allowed a limited white-cloth export, then annulled Cockayne's patent and restored the Merchant Adventurers' charter.
The forced vertical integration failed. The Company of Merchant Adventurers numbered about 3,500 members and handled almost all the woollen trade to Germany and the Netherlands, yet the scheme depressed that trade for years. The finishing arts England had tried to seize by decree were, as a later historian put it, 'gained by us gradually, and without force, which a compulsory law in King James's reign could not effect.'
Why it happened
- They mistook a comparative-advantage problem — the Dutch finished cloth better and cheaper — for one a monopoly and an export ban could solve by fiat
- They assumed foreign buyers had no alternative and would pay the monopoly's price; instead the Dutch and German cities simply banned English dyed cloth, removing the market
- They tried to move a whole industry's value chain overnight by compulsion, before domestic finishing skill existed — so the cloth came out worse and dearer, and even a captive market rejected it
- The scheme rested on a royal monopoly and a seized charter rather than on competitiveness, so it collapsed the moment political will broke under the weavers' clamour
The lesson
You can't capture a rival's downstream margin by decree. Forcing vertical integration by monopoly and export ban works only while buyers have no alternative — the Dutch refused, and it collapsed.
Aftermath
The patent was annulled and the Merchant Adventurers' charter restored, but the English cloth trade stayed depressed for years. The finishing skills the scheme tried to commandeer were acquired only gradually, by market means, over the following decades.
Sources
- David MacPherson, Annals of Commerce, Vol. 2 (1805) — Internet Archive
- William Lingelbach, The Internal Organisation of the Merchant Adventurers of England (1903) — Internet Archive
- Merchant Adventurers of London — Wikipedia
- William Cockayne — Wikipedia
spotted an error? The club wants to know.
More like this
The South Sea Bubble ruined thousands — and even Isaac Newton lost a fortune
The Virginia Company raised a fortune on gold that never came — and lost its charter
Perrie Edwards' fashion brand Disora was dissolved after £265,000 in losses
Somewhere, someone solved the problem this company failed at. 2nd Opinion →

Comments · 0
Sign in to join the comments.