growth in the size and sales of urban breweries. The 1576 restriction was re
newed in 1600 but at least by then brewing in Flushing was no longer in the
rural category and so not subject to the legislation14. By that time Flushing
had a growing industry. Rural producers did not have to pay taxes and rural
property was less expensive as well. Already in 1497 Middelburg imposed
clear, emphatic and simple regulation of brewing beyond the limits of her ju
risdiction. No resident of the town who earned his daily bread in Middelburg
was allowed to buy, drink, or bring in beer from outside the town. A 1504 by
law made a similar restriction but only for one year. In the other direction in
1570 Middelburg prohibited the sale of beer produced in the town to rural
buyers, but that was only when supplies in town were inadequate for Middel
burg drinkers. A number of towns in the Low Countries set a limitation on
the size of each brew in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries but in Zeeland
there were only two cases, 1540 at Veere where the number of barrels that
could be made at any one time was set at a maximum of 40 and 1598 at
Flushing but there it was not a maximum but rather a minimum set at 20 bar-
rels45. In the first instance the desire was to prevent too great a concentration
of the industry in the hands of only big breweries. In the latter the goal was
the same as at Middelburg in 1453, to keep small part time producers out of
the industry, to promote quality and the development of the industry. By
1598 Flushing was succeeding in that consistent goal.
The towns of Zeeland never gave up manipulating taxes and regulations
for the protection of their own industries and protection of their tax incomes.
If the circumstances of the brewing industry turned truly bad, as they did in
Veere in 1567, then towns could resort to temporary embargoes on all im
ported beer. Such restrictions were never expected to last and so did not draw
the ire of other towns. There could be, without much fear of political reprisal,
long term heavy taxes on English and German beers. Those imports were
common targets of very high rates of excise. Taxes for publicans were often
prorated, based on the price of the beer sold. In Zeeland under ordinances of
1637 the same practice was followed as in Holland, with the highest rates of
tax reserved for joopenbier, a very thick and hearty type from Gdansk used
largely for medicinal purposes. There were even distinctions in the rates for
different types of English beer. Holland beers, though foreign imports as
well, were favoured in taxing over beers from Ltibeck and England. In 1572
Flushing dropped the excise on locally brewed beer while raising that on beer
from Holland and Utrecht and raising it even more on foreign beers4". The
changes were drastic and contrary to existing agreements and regulations.
They seem to have brought little notice, perhaps in part because of the Revolt
44. ZA. Arch. Sl.v.Z.: inv.nr. 3227, 1576. inv.nr. 3228. 1600; H. Soly. "De economische betekenis
van de Zuidnederlandse brouwinduslrie in de 16c eeuw. Problematiek", in Handelingen van hel Col
loquium over de economische geschiedenis van België. Behandelingen van de bronnen en prob-
lemaiiek (Brussels 1972) 113-114; Unger, Bronnen, vol. 3. nr. 205.
45. GAVe, inv.nr. 311: fols. 96v-97v; Unger, Bronnen, vol.2, nrs. 114 and 120, vol.3, nr. 860.
46. GAVe, inv.nr. 311: fols. 5r-6r, I57r; ZA. Arch. St.v.Z.: inv.nr. 3227, [15741; C. Cau el al., Groot
Placaeilboek, vol.l. 2048-2059; Winkelman, Vlissingen183-184.
18
