Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T10:19:05.618Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Trouble with Networks: Managing the Scots' Early-Modern Madeira Trade

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 December 2011

David Hancock
David Hancock
Affiliation:
DAVID HANCOCK is associate professor of history at theUniversity of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Most studies of the early-modern Atlantic world give its emergence a sense of inevitability. Historians who have tried to understand networks in the early-modern Atlantic have focused solely on their successes, which skews our understanding. This analysis of the role played by Scottish networks in the production, distribution, and consumption of Madeira wine during that product's golden age, which lasted from 1640 to 1815, attempts to correct the record. Networks succeeded when they led to profitable sharing of information, goods, and services, and they failed when individuals were unable to get networks to function for them. Problems arose among the parties in the course of negotiating terms for sharing, monitoring the agreements, responding to disasters, and estimating the costs of transactions. At times, networks worked so well that they metamorphosed into other social and commercial forms, helping to establish critical nonmetropolitan links within and between the British and Portuguese empires.

Type
Special Section: Networks in the Trade of Alcohol
Information
Business History Review , Volume 79 , Issue 3 , Autumn 2005 , pp. 467 - 491
Copyright
Copyright © The President and Fellows of Harvard College 2005

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Nohria, Nitin, “Introduction: Is a Network Perspective a Useful Way to Study Organisations?” in Networks and Organisations: Structure Form and Action, eds. Nohria, Nitin and Eccles, Robert (Boston, 1992), 3Google Scholar. On the lack of a distinct, overarching theory, see Oliver, Amalya L. and Ebers, Mark, “Networking Network Studies,” Organization Studies 19 (Sept. 1998): 1–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Cf. Powell, Walter W. and Smith-Doerr, Laurel, “Networks and Economic Life,” in The Handbook of Economic Sociology, eds. Smelser, Neil J. and Swedberg, Richard (Princeton, 1994), 368–402Google Scholar, who decry its “general vagueness” but offer little precision; and Silvia Marzagalli, “The Establishment of a Transatlantic Trade Network: Bordeaux and the United States, 1783–1815,” International Seminar on the History of the Atlantic World, 1500–1800, Harvard University, 2003, 2–3, who agrees but offers it up as a broad category of “structure which underlay coordination mechanisms.” The meanings of “network” and “network analysis” are at best imprecise, as they have been applied to a multiplicity of operations and situations at various times. The scholarship is voluminous, and only a fraction of it is referenced in the pages that follow. The techniques themselves are well outlined in Wasserman, Stanley and Faust, Katherine, Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications (New York, 1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 A theory of networking in business has begun to emerge: Eccles, Robert and Nohria, Nitin, Beyond the Hype (Boston, 1992)Google Scholar; Peters, Thomas J., Liberation Management (New York, 1992)Google Scholar. At base, networks facilitate firm sharing and occupy a liminal entrepreneurial space. Zuscovitch, Ehud, “Networks, Specialization and Trust,” in The Economics of Networks: Interaction and Behaviors, ed. Cohendet, Patrick (Berlin, 1998), 244–45Google Scholar. Grandori, Anna and Soda, Giuseppe have also dissected networks, in “Inter-firm Networks: Antecedents, Mechanisms and Forms,” Organization Studies 16 (1995): 183–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Other scholars who have tried to develop a “theory” of business networks include the following: Ben-Porath, Yoram, “The F-Connection: Families, Friends, and Firms and the Organization of Exchange,” Population and Development Review 6 (1980): 1–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Gereffi, Gary and Korzeniewicz, Miguel, Commodity Chains and Global Capitalism (Westport, Conn., 1994)Google Scholar; Borch, Oddy Jarl and Arthur, Michael B., “Strategic Networks among Small Firms: Implications for Strategy Research Methodology,” Journal of Management Studies 32 (1995): 419–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Robertson, Maxine et al. , “The Role of Networks in the Diffusion of Technological Innovation,” Journal of Management Studies 33 (1996): 333–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Umbhauer, Gisèle, “The Economics of Networks,” in The Economics of Networks, ed. Cohendet, Patrick (Berlin, 1998), 1–13Google Scholar.

3 Business and economic histories that analyze networks include Supple, Barry E., “A Business Elite: German-Jewish Financiers in Nineteenth-Century New York,” Business History Review 31 (1957): 143–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Padgett, John and Ansell, Christopher, “Robust Action and the Rise of the Medici,” American Journal of Sociology 98 (1993): 1259–1319CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Gillian Cookson, “Family Firms and Business Networks: Textile Engineering in Yorkshire, 1780–1830,” Business History (1997): 1–20; Mϋller, Leos, The Merchant Houses of Stockholm, c. 1640–1800 (Uppsala, 1998), 32–36, 222–24Google Scholar; Zahediah, Nuala, “Credit, Risk and Reputation in Late Seventeenth-Century Colonial Trade,” Research in Maritime History 15 (1998): 53–74Google Scholar; Marzagalli, Silvia, Les Boulevards de lafraude: Le negoce maritime et le Blocus continental, 1806–1813 (Villeneuve d'Ascq, 1999)Google Scholar; Rose, Mary B., Firms, Networks and Business Values: The British and American Cotton Industries since 1750 (Cambridge, Mass., 2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4 For study by historians, see Farber, Bernard, Guardians of Virtue (New York, 1972)Google Scholar; Frost, J. William, The Quaker Family in Colonial America (New York, 1973)Google Scholar; Wood, Jerome H. Jr., Conestoga Crossroads: Lancaster, Pennsylvania, 1730–1790 (Harrisburg, 1979), 93–112Google Scholar; Darrett, and Rutman, Anita, A Place in Time: Middlesex County, Virginia, 1650–1750 (New York, 1984)Google Scholar; Walsh, Lorena S., “Community Networks in the Early Chesapeake,” in Colonial Chesapeake Society, eds. Carr, Lois G. et al. (Chapel Hill, 1988), 200–41Google Scholar; Faber, Eli, A Time for Planting: The First Migration, 1654–1820 (Baltimore, 1992)Google Scholar; Bearman, Peter, Relations into Rhetoric: Local Elite Social Structure in Norfolk England, 1540–1640 (New Brunswick, 1993)Google Scholar; Claudia Schnurmann, “Atlantic Trade via Supranational Networks,” International Seminar on the History of the Atlantic World, 1500-1800, Harvard University, 1999; Beiler, Rosalind, “Distributing Aid to Believers in Need: The Religious Foundations of Transatlantic Migration,” Pennsylvania History 64 (Special Suppl., 1997): 73–87Google Scholar; Hinderaker, Eric, Elusive Empires: Constructing Colonialism in the Ohio Valley, 1673–1800 (Ithaca, 1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Meadows, R. D., “Engineering Exile: Social Networks and the French Atlantic Community, 1789–1809,” French Historical Studies 23 (2000): 67–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and “Social Networks and Transatlantic Migration: Saint-Domingue Refugees during the French and Haitian Revolutions,” International Seminar on the History of the Atlantic World, 1500–1800, Harvard University, 2001.

5 For a study by an archaeologist, see Orser, Charles E. Jr., “Consumption, Consumerism, and Things from the Earth,” Historical Methods 27 (1994): 61–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar. In geography, see Hohenberg, Paul M. et al. , The Making of Urban Europe, 1000–1994 (Cambridge, Mass., 1995)Google Scholar. Social scientists have been attempting to derive a “theory” of social networks for decades. See Wolf, Eric R., “Kinship, Friendship, and Patron-Client Relations in Complex Societies,” in The Social Anthropology of Complex Societies, ed. Banton, Michael (London, 1966), 1–22Google Scholar; Emerbaya, Mustaf and Goodwin, Jeff, “Network Analysis, Culture, and the Problem of Agency,” American Journal of Sociology 99 (1994): 1411–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Watts, Duncan J., Small Worlds: The Dynamics of Networks between Order and Randomness (Princeton, 1999)Google Scholar, and his compelling and readable Six Degrees: The Science of a Connected Age (New York, 2003)Google Scholar.

6 Several students of business management have looked at the failure of modern business networks and of private-sector/government networks. See Miles, Raymond E. and Snow, Charles C., “Causes of Failure in Network Organizations,” California Management Review 34 (Summer 1992): 53–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Koch, Andrew and Fuchs, Gerhard, “Economic Globalization and Regional Penetration: The Failure of Networks in Baden-Wϋrttemberg,” European Journal of Political Research 37 (2000): 57–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar. But this perspective is at odds with the overriding optimism of most scholarship. Examples of the “optimistic” approach include Cookson, “Family Firms”; Wood, Conestoga Crossroads; Schnurmann, “Atlantic Trade.”

7 Hoppitt, Julian, Risk and Failure in English Business, 1700–1800 (Cambridge, U.K., 1987), 1CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

8 Ibid., 1; Hancock, David, “Commerce and Conversation in the Eighteenth-Century Atlantic: The Invention of Madeira Wine,” Journal of Interdisciplinary History 29 (1998): 197–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

9 Bible (Tyndale English transl., 1530), Exod.: 28:4; Bible (Geneva English transl., 1560), Exod.: 27:4; Clay, J. W., ed., The Parish Registers of Ledsham, in the County of York, 1539–1812 (York, 1906), 35Google Scholar; Spenser, Edmund, Muiopotmos, or The Fate of the Butterflie (London, 1590), 368Google Scholar.

10 Browne, Thomas, Hydriotaphia, Urne-buriall, or, A discourse of the sepulchrall urnes lately found in Norfolk: together with the Garden of Cyrus (London, 1658), book 3, 148Google Scholar; Blackmore, Richard, A treatise of consumptions and other distempers belonging to the breast and lungs (London, 1724), 19Google Scholar; Raynal, Abbé Guillaume-Thomas-François, A philosophical and political history of the settlements and trade of the Europeans in the East and West Indies, transl. Justamond, J. O., 8 vols. (London, 1783), 5:188Google Scholar.

11 Coleridge, Samuel T., A lay sermon, addressed to the higher and middle classes, on the existing distresses and discontents (London, 1817), 373Google Scholar; Thirlwall, Connop, A History of Greece, 8 vols. (London, 1839), 6: 110Google Scholar; Livingstone, David, Missionary Travels and Researches in South Africa (London, 1857), book 10, 199Google Scholar; Emerson, Ralph Waldo, English Traits (London, 1856), 43Google Scholar; Journal of the Society of Telegraph Engineers and of Electricians 12 (1883): 551Google Scholar.

12 Science News 4 (1947): 37Google Scholar.

13 Bott, Elizabeth, Family and Social Network (London, 1957), 62, 92Google Scholar.

14 Prestoungrange, Gordon and Yearsley, Ronald, eds., Handbook of Management Technology (New York, 1967), 73, 74, 98Google Scholar.

15 Analog Science: Fact/Fiction (Dec. 1960): 68; Carré, John LeTinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy (New York, 1974), 196Google Scholar.

16 One example appeared in the Canadian Journal of Linguistics 15 (1970): 103Google Scholar: “Once we express a grammar in terms of a relational network, intermediate symbols become completely superfluous.” Examination of the Social Science Citation Index reveals 106 different citations with “network” in the title, key word, or abstract entries in 1945–54; 261 in 1955–64; and 1,647 in 1965–74.

17 Hyde, Edward, Earl of Clarendon, The History of the Rebellion and Civil Wars in England, 3 vols. (Oxford, 1704), vol. 3: 601Google Scholar; Defoe, Daniel, Colonel Jack (London, 1722), 171Google Scholar.

18 Sterne, Laurence, A Sentimental Journey through France and Italy (London, 1768), 34Google Scholar; Goldsmith, Oliver, She Stoops to Conquer (London, 1773), vol. 1: iiGoogle Scholar; Smollett, Tobias G., The Expedition of Humphrey Clinker, 3 vols. (Dublin, 1771), vol. 2: 37Google Scholar; Cowper, William, The Task and Other Poems, 2 vols. (London, 1784), vol. 2: 684Google Scholar; Lawrence, Rose, Gortz of Berlingen (Liverpool, 1799), 40Google Scholar.

19 The Americans in 1768 included Marylanders James Jenkins, Thomas Patten, and Joseph Gillis, all of Lamar, Hill, Bisset & Co.; New Yorkers John Searle and James Ayres; and another Marylander, Henry Cock. The representation of Quakers and Huguenots was high, out of proportion to the general population.

20 Walter and Robert Scott first appear in the Saidas on 15 Dec. 1728, and 25 Aug. 1729, respectively. Livros dos Saidas, no. 252, ff. 53, 69, Arquivo Nacional do Torre do Tombo, Lisbon, Portugal. A younger brother, John, arrived several years later and took over the management of the house when Robert moved to London in 1736 or 1737. On the Scotts, see Colonial Office 137/17 sub 29 May 1737, National Archives of England, Kew, Surrey; Davies, Kenneth G., ed., Calendar of State Papers (Colonial Series), vol. 43 (London, 1963), 259–60Google Scholar; Edgar, Walter B., ed., The Letterbook of Robert Pringle, 2 vols. (Columbia, 1972), vol. 1: 29, 158Google Scholar; Will of Robert Scott, dated 11 Apr. 1769, proved 1 June 1771, PROB 11, National Archives of England, Kew, Surrey, England; and Plaisted, Arthur H., The Manor and Parish Records of Medmenham, Buckinghamshire (London, 1925), 139–40Google Scholar.

21 On the firm founded by James Gordon of Letterfourie and managed by James Gordon, his brother Alexander Gordon, and their nephews James, Robert, and William Duff of Pitchaish, see Alistair, and Tayler, Henrietta, The Book of the Duffs, vol. 2 (Edinburgh, 1914), 466–88Google Scholar; Jacobites of Aberdeenshire & Banffshire in the Forty-Five (Aberdeen, 1928), 144, 203–4Google Scholar; Jacobites of Aberdeenshire & Banffshire in the Rising of 1715 (Edinburgh, 1934), 108–9Google Scholar; Burke, John, A Genealogical and Heraldic History of the Landed Gentry, 18th ed. (London, 1972), 384–85Google Scholar. According to one contemporary account by an Englishman, in A Genuine & True Journal of the Escape of the Young Chevalier (London, 1749)Google Scholar, a ring was given to Alexander Gordon by Prince Charles Edward after the Battle of Culloden as a remembrance of meritorious service. What little is known of the Newtons before 1748 is documented in volume 2 of the Newton & Gordon Letterbooks, David Cossart Collection, Suffolk, England.

22 Granovetter, Mark, “The Strength of Weak Ties,” American Journal of Sociology 78 (1973): 1360–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and “The Strength of Weak Ties: A Network Theory Revisited,” in Social Structure and Network Analysis, eds. Marsden, Peter and Lin, Nan (Beverley Hills, 1982), 105–30Google Scholar. Granovetter calls relationships like that between the Newtons and the Gordons of the firm Newton & Gordon “weak” ties, in contrast to the “strong” ties of family, and he points to “the strength of weak ties.” The value of weak ties is that they connect one primary group to another, serving as channels for both information and support.

23 Cf. John F. Padgett, “Organizational Genesis, Identity, and Control: The Transformation of Banking in Renaissance Florence,” unpublished ms., 2000, 12.

24 Henry Hill to Newton & Gordon, 4 Nov. 1773, Newton & Gordon Papers, Bundle 5, Box 1, Guildhall Library, London, England.

25 On the connections of the Scott, Pringle, Murray, and Veitch clans, see note 20, above; Burke, , Landed Gentry, 3 vols. (London, 1846), vol. 2: 903Google Scholar, 3 (Suppl.): 267; Pringle, Alexander, The Records of the Pringles or Hoppringills of the Scottish Border (Edinburgh, 1933), 171–79Google Scholar; Craig-Brown, Thomas, The History of Selkirkshire, 2 vols. (Edinburgh, 1886), vol. 2: 299–313Google Scholar, 335–48; Buchan, James W. and Paton, Henry, eds., A History of Peebleshire, 3 vols. (Glasgow, 1927), vol. 3: 438–43Google Scholar; Wilson, William, Folk Lore and Genealogies of Uppermost Nithesdale (Dumfries, 1904), 206–13Google Scholar; and Anon., Genealogical Fragments (Berwick, 1855), 13–15Google Scholar. On the Cheaps, see The Court and City Register (London, 1765), 109Google Scholar; Gentleman's Magazine 64 (Suppl.): 1, 206Google Scholar; Will of Thomas Cheap, proved 15 Apr. 1795, PROB 11/1259, National Archives of England; Academia das Ciênciàs de Lisboa, Descriptive List of the State Papers, Portugal, 1661-1780, in the Public Record Office London, 3 vols. (Lisbon, 1983), vol. 3: 15, 25–26, 56, 71, 83–84, 87–88Google Scholar; Parker, James G., “The Directors of the East India Company” (Ph.D. diss., University of Edinburgh, 1977), 197–99Google Scholar.

26 Thomas Cheap to Secretary of State, 3 June 1771, SP 89/71/130, National Archives of England. Also beneficial was Cheap's service as a director of the East India Company in 1777–78 and 1780–83, when he could procure for his firm large orders for wine sent to the India Presidencies. Parker, “Directors,” 197–99.

27 On the Loughnans, as well as the Fergussons, Dempsters, and Fearnses to whom the Loughnans were related, see George Spence to Francis Newton, 26 Oct. 1753, vol. 1, f. 77, Newton & Gordon Letterbooks; Michael Nowlan to Gedley Clare Burges, 24 June 1756, Nowlan & Burges Letterbook, Private Collection, Funchal, Madeira; Burke, A Genealogical and Heraldic Dictionary, 406–7; Burke, Bernard, A Genealogical and Heraldic Dictionary of the Peerage, Baronetage and Knightage (London, 1959), 846–48Google Scholar; Fergusson, James, ed., Letters of George Dempster to Sir Adam Fergusson, 1756–1813 (London, 1934)Google Scholar; Last Will of James Fearns, written 13 Mar. 1797, proved 13 June 1797, PROB 11/292, National Archives of England.

29 The 28 David Hancock, Oceans of Wine, Empires of Commerce (forthcoming), ch. 6.

29 I say “usually” because one of the principal projects of economists in the last generation has been to complicate the textbook economic model. Some of the complications have moved in the direction of considering how agents respond to others in the economy, depending on who they are or the agents' personal history of interactions. A game-theoretical model in which agents in an economy are explicitly individuals is presented in Kelso, Alexander and Crawford, Vincent, “Job Matching, Coalition Formation, and Gross Substitutes,” Econometrica 50 (1982): 1483–1504CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Note, however, that some of the economics literature does refer to the relations among traders in textbook economic markets as a “network.”

30 John Corrie to Thomas Gordon, 7 Jan. 1771, Box 5, Bundle 1770–71, Cossart & Gordon Papers, Guildhall Library, London; Ursula Carlyle to David Hancock, 22 Aug. 2001 (no Mercer lists before 1833 have survived); Christ's Hospital Admissions Registers, c. 1735–42, Ms. 12,818/8, ff. 229–55, Mss. Section, Guildhall Library; Coldham, Peter W., ed., Child Apprentices in America from Christ's Hospital, London, 1617–1778 (Baltimore, 1990), 86, 91, 98, 100Google Scholar. Christ's alumni later tapped included William Antrobus of Antigua, Richard Allnutt of London, and John Jackson of Antigua.

31 Thomas Newton to Anthony Sarly, 22 Jan. 1756, to Malcolm Campbell, 22 Jan. 1756, to Dr. Robert Knox, 23 Mar. 1756, to Evan Cameron, 3 June 1756, to Malcolm Campbell, 27 Sept. 1756, to Francis Newton, 12 Feb. 1759, Thomas Newton Letterbook, ff. 1, 3, 7,15,19, 50, and Samuel & David Bean to Newton & Gordon, 15 Apr. 1760, Loose Letters, Madeira Wine Company Archives, Funchal, Madeira; Thomas Gordon to Francis Newton, 8 Apr., 15 May 1769, vol. 4, ff. 326, 341, Newton & Gordon to Fisher & Berney, 20 Apr. 1789, vol. 11, f. 41, Newton & Gordon Letterbooks. Cf. William Alder to A. Clow & Co., 26 Apr. 1790, Correspondence Folder 1785–1798, Box 60D, Claude W. Unger Collection, Historical Society of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Alder had met Clow in Liverpool and, on setting up business in Madeira in 1790, made “a tender of best services” based on the establishment of that acquaintance. On trust, see Hosmer, Larue T., “Trust: The Connecting Link between Organizational Theory and Philosophical Ethics,” Academy of Management Review 20 (1995): 379–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

32 Newton & Gordon to Fisher & Berney, 20 Apr. 1789, vol. 12, p. 41, Newton & Gordon Letterbooks; Newton & Gordon to John Rowe, 17 Sept. 1762, vol. 3, f. 45, 4 Apr. 1767,14 Apr. 1768, 23 July 1771, vol. 4, ff. 79, 205, 597, and to Francis Newton, 28 May 1774, vol. 5, f. 361, and 9 Nov. 1775, vol. 6, f. 11, 9 Nov. 1775, to Henry Hill, 14 Aug. 1788, vol. 10, f. 42, Newton & Gordon Letterbooks.

33 On Hill's early struggles, and his successful attempt to overcome suspicions harbored by fellow Quakers, see Smith, John Jay, Letters of Doctor Richard Hill and His Children (Philadelphia, 1854), 23, 27, 34, 36–39, 56. See also Robert Scott to Richard Hill Sr., 10 Sept. 1740, with Hill's note at foot, and Richard Hill Sr. to Richard Hill Jr., 27 Jan. 1741, Folder 1, Richard Hill Sr. to Richard Hill Jr., 14 Sept. 1742, 4 July 1743, and Deborah Hill to Hannah Moore, 6 June 1750, Gulielma Collection, Haverford College Library, Haverford, Pennsylvania.Google Scholar

34 Newton & Gordon to John Rowe, 17 Sept. 1762, vol. 3, f. 45, 4 Apr. 1767, 14 Apr. 1768, 23 July 1771, vol. 4, ff. 79, 205, 597, and to Francis Newton, 28 May 1774, vol. 5, f. 361, and 9 Nov. 1775, vol. 6, f. 11, Newton & Gordon Letterbooks.

35 On problems with the Bean brothers, see Samuel & David Bean to Newton & Gordon, 15 Apr. 1760, Loose Letters, Madeira Wine Company Archives; Newton & Gordon to Samuel & David Bean, 29 Jan. 1761, 24 Feb. 1763, 29 Nov. 1766, 12 Apr., 30 July, 17 Aug. 1767, Thomas Gordon to Francis Newton, 8 Apr., 15 May 1769, vol. 4, ff. 326, 341, to Samuel & David Bean, 29 July, 3 Sept. 1769, 9 Apr. 1770, to Francis Newton, 27 Nov. 1773, 24 Apr. 1776, 8 Jan. 1778, 20 Feb. 1780, to Samuel Bean, 23 Dec. 1775, 22 Apr. 1776, and to Wilkinson & Gordon, 23 Apr. 1776, Newton & Gordon Letterbooks.

36 On Joseph Gillis, see Smith to Gordon Brothers, 1780s, Gordon of Letterfourie Papers, Private Collection, Banffshire, Scotland; Bisset to Hill, 1780s, Hill Family Papers, John Jay Smith Collection “A,” Historical Society of Pennsylvania.

37 Lin, Nan, “Social Resources and the Emergence of Social Structure” (unpublished ms., 1990)Google Scholar, and Social Capital: A Theory of Social Structure and Action (New York, 2001)Google Scholar. Providing a refuge on the island forged links to individuals with new information and contacts and brought people from different worlds and empires and with different social and economic networks together. It initiated relationships of trust among previous strangers. Such “cross-fertilization” also exposed Atlantic so journers to new ideas; and the distributors made sure that among them was the idea of drinking a wine that perhaps they had not tasted before and in a manner that was new. Of course, the contacts were two-way channels, and they also offered the distributors new ideas and customs. By creating a climate of trust, distributors accessed information sources and consumer contacts as diverse as the empires they came from, although powerful and highly ranked customers were always preferred. Many a future customer or correspondent began with a merchant providing a room or a meal to a visitor who arrived at his door bearing the flimsiest of introductions. For instances of hospitality, see Gordon Brothers to James Gordon, 27 Dec. 1761, Letterfourie Papers; Newton & Gordon to Thomas Gordon, 20 Feb. 1793, Newton & Gordon Letterbooks, vol. 15, f. 64. In addition to commercial and social visitors were the “medical” visitors, who came in droves toward the end of the century.

38 Thomas Murdoch to Francis Newton, 1 Feb. 1790, Newton & Gordon Letterbooks, vol. 12, f. 218; John Leacock Jr. to William Leacock, 18 Oct. 1799, 28 Oct. 1800, 28 May 1801, Leacock & Leacock Letterbook 1799–1802, ff. 80, 206, 258, Leacock Papers.

39 On the assumed understanding among members, which in fact broke down, see Newton & Gordon to Alexander Johnston & Co., 25 Nov. 1773, vol. 5, f. 277, Newton & Gordon to Francis Newton, 15 Apr. 1778, vol. 6, f. 371, Newton & Gordon Letterbooks. See also Isaac Norris Sr. to Benjamin Bartlett, 7 Dec. 1717, f. 117, Norris of Fairhill Papers, vol. 8, Historical Society of Pennsylvania; John Brown to Welcome Arnold & George Benson, 29 Sept. 1787, VG35, Brown Family Papers, John Carter Brown Library, Providence, R.I.; Hill, Lamar & Hill to Samuel Galloway, 5 Mar. 1754, Galloway Papers, Box 1, Folder 1: Correspondence, 1739-54, Box 1, New York Public Library, New York, N.Y.; Alexander Oliphant to William Reeve, Son & Hill, 3 Sept. 1768, Letterbook of Alexander Oliphant & Co., 1766–71, GD 306/1/1, National Archives of Scotland, Edinburgh, Scotland.

40 Systematic Sociology (New York, 1932), 355Google Scholar.

41 Although this was not an inevitable consequence of long-distance trade. The East India Company, for example, was organized as a hierarchy.

42 The Newton & Gordon/Willing & Morris relationship is recorded in Newton & Gordon to Kearny & Gilbert, 10 June 1768, vol. 4, f. 222, to Thomas Gordon, 25 Aug. 1787, vol. 10, f. 33, to Tunno & Cox, 28 Apr. 1795, vol. 17, f. 275,25,2 8 Mar. 1798, vol. 18, f. 281, 4 Sept. 1798, vol. 19, f. 82, Newton & Gordon Letterbooks; Willing Morris & Swanwick to Newton, Gordon & Johnston, 1 Oct. 1791, Cossart Gordon Papers, Box 1791–92, Bundle 6, Guildhall Library; letters to and from Willing, Morris & Swanwick, 1783–85, papers of Willing, Morris & Swanwick, MG 134, Pennsylvania State Archives, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania; Thomas Willing Letterbook, Willing Family Papers, Historical Society of Pennsylvania; Dominick Lynch & Thomas Stoughton Papers, 2 vols., 1783–94, New York Historical Society, New York, New York; Robert Morris Papers, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C.

43 See note 39, above.

44 John Searle to Newton, Gordon & Johnston, 9 Dec. 1789, Box 1788/1789, Cossart, Gordon Papers, Guildhall Library; Newton & Gordon to Thomas Gordon, 6 Mar. 1790, vol. 13, f. 257, Newton & Gordon Letterbooks; Richard Lamar Bisset to Henry Hill, 17 Sept. 1791, vol. 10, f. 146, Hill Family Papers. See also Daniel Henry Smith to James Gordon, 16 Mar., 15 June 1776, Leacock Papers. Take, for example, the ups and downs of the Swedish supply of fish: Alexander Gordon to James Gordon, 8 Oct. 1760, Chambers, Torngren, Bellenden & Co. to James Gordon, 15 Sept. 1762, 2 Mar., 14 Sept. 1763, Alexander Gordon to James Gordon, 8 July 1766, Letterfourie Papers; Orders from Gothenburg, 1764–65, Box 3, Cossart Gordon Papers. Charles Murray supplied the Marquis of Carmarthen with a detailed qualitative and quantitative report on the state of the island's fish trade in 1786. Memo, 15 July 1786, Foreign Office 63/7, National Archives of England.

45 Ledger A, 1724–1731, Norris of Fairhill Papers, vol. 13, f. 29, and Isaac Norris Sr. to Miles & Richbell, Benjamin Bartlett, Oliveira & Mordecai, and Vasconcelos D. Bettencourt, 20 Nov. 1716, Isaac Norris Sr. Letters, Norris of Fairhill Papers, vol. 8, ff. 39–41; Lamar, Hill, Bisset & Co. to Samuel Galloway, 8 Mar. 1763, Galloway Family Correspondence, vol. 6, 1762–64, Galloway-Maxcy-Markoe Family Papers, Library of Congress; Lamar, Hill, Bissett Papers, John Jay Smith Family Papers A, vols. 6–8, Historical Society of Pennsylvania; InLetters, 1763-75, Baynton, Wharton & Morgan Papers, Pennsylvania State Archives; Gerard Garret Beekman to John Searle, 3 June 1764, to Eleazer Trevett, 10 Oct. 1764, to Hill, Lamar & Hill, 15 Jan. 1759, to David Barclay & Sons, 1758, in The Beekman Mercantile Papers, 1746–1799, 3 vols., ed. White, Philip L. (New York, 1956), vol. 1: 466, 474, 328, 337.Google Scholar

46 Newton & Gordon to Fisher & Berney, 20 Apr. 1789, vol. 12, p. 41, Newton & Gordon Letterbooks; Newton & Gordon to John Rowe, 17 Sept. 1762, vol. 3, f. 45, 4 Apr. 1767,14 Apr. 1768, 23 July 1771, vol. 4, ff. 79, 205, 597, and to Francis Newton, 28 May 1774, vol. 5, f. 361, and 9 Nov. 1775, vol. 6, f. 11, 9 Nov. 1775, to Henry Hill, 14 Aug. 1788, vol. 10, f. 42, Newton & Gordon Letterbooks. On conversation, see Hancock, “Commerce and Conversation.”

47 Newton & Gordon to Charles Hunter, 19 July 1772, to Alexander Johnston, 25 July 1772, to Francis Newton, 25 July, 15 Aug. 1772, vol. 5, ff. 90, 93, 92, 113, Newton & Gordon Letterbooks.

48 Newton & Gordon to Fisher & Berney, 20 Apr. 1789, vol. 12, p. 41, Newton & Gordon to John Rowe, 17 Sept. 1762, vol. 3, f. 45, 4 Apr. 1767, 14 Apr. 1768, 23 July 1771, vol. 4, ff. 79, 205, 597, and to Francis Newton, 28 May 1774, vol. 5, f. 361, and 9 Nov. 1775, vol. 6, f. 11, to Henry Hill, 14 Aug. 1788, vol. 10, f. 42, Newton & Gordon Letterbooks.

49 Miles and Snow, “Causes of Failure,” 67.

50 This and the following paragraphs are drawn from: Henry Hill to Robert Bisset, 27 Oct. 1792, Folder 7, Sarah A. G. Smith Collection, Hill Family Papers; list of Outstanding Debtors, 1797, vol. 1, f. 172, Robert Bisset to Henry Hill, 23 Apr., 25 May, 20 June, 9 July 1798, vol. 12, ff. 69, 69, 84, 94, John Jay Smith Collection “A,” Hill Family Papers. The “Losses & Debts” list drawn up for the suit waged by the widow Lamar lists debtors as of 25 Jan. 1797; since all sales were on credit, the list of outstanding debtors provides some sense of who received wine from the firm several years before 1797.