Saline divine gift

The saline Gottesgabe was a saltworks in the Westphalian Rheine in the former duchy of Münster .

Saline divine gift

history

Ownership between the 11th and 15th centuries

The salt production at Rheine is documented for the first time during the reign of Bishop Siegfried von Walbeck , 1022-1032. The certified copy of a document from 1439 shows in this context that two women from the Count von Kappenberg family also gave away boilers with different church foundations. Since it was probably only the giving away of functional boiling huts that would have been worth the performance in such a deed of donation, it can rightly be assumed that salt production was already in operation at that time. Around 200 years later, the Bentlager Gertrudis Church, which until then was the owner of the Siedehütten, was revoked by the government of the Münster bishop and the associated Niederhof Bentlage and its salt works were incorporated into the bishop's possession.

For the year 1437 it is further documented that the bishop of Münster, Heinrich II. Von Moers , sold the Niederhof including the salt works for 2,600 Rhenish gold guilders to the Bentlager Kreuzherrenkloster , whereby the canons of the monastery made the purchase decision with express reference to the possibilities for Determine salt production. Salt production for the purpose of the salt trade did not come about in the monastery business in the 15th and 16th centuries, but production to cover personal needs did. The reason that the intentions to make profits of the Bentlager brothers in faith could not be realized was due to various external influences to which the monastery was subject. In this context, the raging of the plague , the low financial resources of the monastery, which made further investments in the salt operation impossible, and the so-called Münster feud , during which the city of Rheine was attacked after the death of Bishop Heinrich II von Moers and was partially destroyed, made responsible for the failure of a salt production that expanded beyond its own needs. Whether this was really the case, and whether production actually only extended to personal use, cannot be conclusively formulated with certainty. In contrast to other salt pans, the source location for the salt system at Bentlage and Rheine is extremely poor for the period of the 15th and 16th centuries.

Inscription on the saltworks God's gift

Management by von Velen

Hermann von Velen takes over the salt works

This only changes for the period from 1577, when Prince-Bishop Johann Wilhelm (Jülich-Kleve-Berg) of Münster and Baron Hermann von Velen , Droste of the offices of Emsland , Bevergern and Rheine , with the brine springs on the Huxberg near Bevergern on the ground and Enfeoffed soil of the Gravenhorst women's monastery and brine in the Horstmar am Rodenberg near Wettringen, about 10 km from Rheine, on a property belonging to the Augustinian monastery in Metelen . These boiling sites are the actual forerunners of the God's gift of salt. Since the lordly mountain shelf began to develop in the Münster Hochstift in the middle of the 16th century , Hermann von Velen, who was motivated by the emerging art of grading and wanted to use the brine on these grounds for commercial purposes, required the special consent of the Cathedral chapter of Münster. In contrast to the monasteries, whose use of the sources was an inextricable outflow of property (pertinence), secular use was not considered in connection with the property.

The quick enfeoffment of Velens, however, stood in the way that the prince-bishops in the bishopric of Münster could not yet succeed in enforcing the unrestricted mountain or salt shelf with regard to the brine springs against the pertinence of the monastic property. The cathedral chapter and the bishop therefore suggested, on the occasion of the hereditary fief, a comparison of the future tenant with the land-owning monasteries, which dragged on considerably and led to numerous legal disputes. Finally, the cathedral chapter agreed to reimburse the monastery 300 Reichstaler and an annuity of six tons of salt, one Malter rye, one Malter barley and two Maltern oats according to Rhenish measures in return for the loan and the rights of use arising from it, and handed these charges over by contract of August 5, 1577 to the tenant von Velen. Von Velen also had to compare himself to the Metelen monastery under pressure and with the mediation of the cathedral chapter, in that from 1579 he was obliged to pay the monastery nine Reichstaler annually. The importance of this process for the sovereign politics, in particular for the handling of the mountain shelf, can be described as follows: Through the assumed mediation, the efforts of the state government to deprive the property owner of the free availability of the brine sources became clear. In order to achieve this goal, she proceeded in such a way that she initially had the property transferred to her in order to then be able to freely dispose of the brine springs at her own discretion. Such an approach by the Münster cathedral chapter at a time when the lordly mountain shelf had long been recognized in many parts of the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation is explained by the contrast between landowners and sovereigns in the enforcement of the mountain shelf.

Rights and obligations

After the lending, some rights and obligations arose for Hermann von Velen from the deed itself, which the cathedral chapter had imposed on him. In general, the baron was free to sell shares in his salt works to third parties. However, this was only possible with the consent of the cathedral chapter by means of an underfief, with the proviso that the underfiefs were also part of the saline, i.e. were directly related to the salt works. The underfed fellow trades and their descendants were not allowed to sell shares. The bishop had a general right of first refusal on all sales . As in the Unna saltworks , the feudal lord also insisted on being able to withdraw the fief immediately if the tenant ceased to operate the salt works for six months or let the sites fall into disrepair in order to either continue it independently or to lend it further. In contrast to the situation in Brandenburg-Prussia , for example , the sovereign was obliged in this case to pay the feudal recipient a monetary compensation for the above-ground facilities. In addition, the Prince-Bishop always had the right to become a 1/8 shareholder after 25 years in exchange for a corresponding share subscription. Von Velen also had the duty - and here we can see the first signs of a mercantilist - cameralistic economic policy in the monastery of Münster - to supply the inhabitants of the prince-bishopric with preference over foreigners and at a reasonable price.

It was therefore the intention of the sovereign to contribute to the prosperous self-sufficiency of the population with the support of the Velen salt works. At the same time, he intervened considerably in the entrepreneurial freedom of sales and price policy, threatening the seizure of the fief if von Velen should violate these sales and price policy dispositions.

Economic development

Overall, the economic development of the Velen salt works in Huxberg and Rodenberg was more bad than good. Although the entrepreneur succeeded in selling his salt as far as Kurköln , he soon suffered from a decrease in the solderiness, the payment of the salt tithe, the costs for the expensive wood-firing - hard coal could not be procured in a quantity that would cover the heating requirements - and finally the warlike ones Disputes at the end of the 16th century, during which Spanish mercenary groups coming from Holland disrupted operations considerably. As early as 1580, the Münster sovereign had to waive the payment of the salt tithe and convert the taxes to payments in kind - 100 tons per year for the bishop, 2 - 3 tons per year for each canon . When Heinrich von Velen's three sons took over the salt pans on Huxberg and Rodenberg after the death of Heinrich von Velen in 1587, the company was hopelessly over-indebted. Another three years later, the facilities were almost completely destroyed by an attack by royal Spanish troops . After that, only Alexander von Velen, Herr zu Raesfeld and Marshal of the Princely Munster, was willing to continue the work for a small amount of compensation from his two brothers Hermann and Johann von Velen.

With the privilege of October 16, 1603, the von Velen family again received the right from the then Prince-Bishop Ernst of Bavaria to use the salt pans on Huxberg and Rodenberg in exchange for tithing the net income. In this privilege, the sovereign guaranteed his duty to ensure that the land required for the construction of above-ground facilities would be assigned immediately, regardless of whose land it was. With this, Ernst von Bayern began to handle shelf law much more rigidly than all other feudal lords before him. He gave the operator family of Velen also the right to presumption of new brine wells in Bentlage where Alexander von Velen during a visit of Mr. Cross monastery was finally some finds. These - rediscovered - springs had a solderiness of 4.5 - 9.5 and in some cases even 12 percent and, due to this high concentration, promised a more profitable operation than the springs at Huxberg and Rodenberg.

This natural occurrence appeared so remarkable to Alexander von Velen that he considered the salt works at this point as a godsend and henceforth called the saltworks godsend. One of the first steps taken by the new entrepreneur was to switch the firing from wood to the cheaper fuel peat . For this purpose, Prince-Bishop Ernst granted him the right in 1606 to have as much peat cut from the Prince-Bishop's Muenster moors in the Emsland as was necessary for the furnace operation of the Gottesgabe salt works. At the same time, von Velen switched salt production to grading using leakage works. The construction of the new plant required considerable investment sums, which Alexander von Velen had to shoulder as the sole specialist and subject promoter. Since he was soon no longer able to do so and both operating and other costs incurred to finance the investments exceeded his financial possibilities, he initially leased the Gottesgabe saltworks for four years, and finally in 1607 five financially strong citizens from Rheine as promoters to start operating. They were obliged to procure the necessary investment funds and received in return the right to sell the production alone, although Alexander von Velen for his part retained the right to sell a tenth of the salt produced and two Reichstaler as a commission each sold ton of salt to keep the other financiers. This business model lasted until 1614. Up to this point in time, the jointly exercised management succeeded in generating rapid sales of the saline production and corresponding profits through a demand that was more than double the production.

Decline of the saline God's gift

Transport problems, a lack of fuel and a lack of iron for urgently needed replacement investments in the pans led in 1614 to the fact that the investors withdrew from the saline Gottesgabe. Alexander von Velen, who died in 1630, again put considerable funding shortfalls. With the outbreak of the Thirty Years' War the final decline of the Saline Gottesgabe began in the 17th century. It culminated in the partial demolition of the plant on the occasion of the destruction and complete cremation of the Bentlage monastery by the Swedes under General von Königsmarck in 1647. After the end of the war and all repairs had been completed, the von Velen family left the actual management and leased the plant several times further. Nevertheless, at no point in the late 17th century was the business likely to have become profitable again; in 1651 alone there was a debt burden of 73,920 Reichstalers, an unbelievable amount for the time. Up until 1735, management was the responsibility of the bailiff or the mayor of the city of Rheine, which meant that the city had considerable influence on the commercial and technical management of the saline until the beginning of the 18th century and played a key role in shaping the salt trade and price determination.

Works constitution and management of the Gottesgabe salt works

The saline Gottesgabe was no longer operating at the beginning of the 18th century. While the brine springs on the Rodenberg were no longer used at all, the operating results of the salt mines in Bentlage and on the Huxberg were marginal: the von Velen family only received an annual lease sum of 120 Reichstalers from the leasing of both sites. In addition to the war damage already mentioned in the course of the Thirty Years' War and the lack of investment power of the operating family, two other reasons for this development emerged at the beginning of the 18th century: on the one hand, the competition for the much cheaper salt from the Netherlands reached the territory of the bishopric of Münster others did not have the sales market in the neighboring Lingener Emsland, which had fallen to Brandenburg-Prussia in 1702 and was therefore subject to the state monopoly of the salt trade and import ban on foreign salt. The vegetation of the Saline Gottesgabe only changed in 1730, when the Prince-Bishop of Münster, Clemens August I of Bavaria , who had shown little interest in the precarious state of the complex in Bentlage and on the Huxberg, and for this reason that Salt marriage of the Velen family, with confirmation on June 14, 1727, had changed his mind. The Münster sovereign now turned - and thus much later than other sovereigns in the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation - to the goals and instruments of a mercantilist-cameralist economic policy: his declared goal was to import foreign salt through his own production of salt in his own territory and thus to prevent the outflow of funds abroad. At the same time, it was his intention to re-establish and expand the saltworks of God's gift to raise their own state finances as a fiscal operation. The sovereign initially had an exclusively state-financed and operated salt works in mind. Similar to his sovereign colleague in Brandenburg-Prussia, Friedrich Wilhelm I , who in the legal dispute with the Zahn family of operators always paid attention to the operating activities of the salt works and a sufficient tithe as the basis for the continued existence of the lent fief, Clemens August invoked the Passage of the sovereign mountain shelf from the Golden Bull, according to which a fief was to be withdrawn if the business was idle or the salt tithe was not paid sufficiently or on time. In addition, he was offered a passage from the first deed of deed for Hermann von Velen from 1577, according to which the sovereign and feudal lender was able to withdraw the fief if the tithe was insufficiently paid in return for appropriate compensation for the operator's invested capital Instrument to put his plans for the saline divine gift into practice. Unlike Friedrich Wilhelm I, Clemens August prevailed against the head of the von Velen family, Hermann Anton Bernhard von Velen , in a very short time . Unlike the von Zahn zu Unna family, the feudal taker barely resisted the attempts of their sovereign, since the boiling activities of 1734 resulted in another loss of 541 Reichstalers. The Velen family who ran it in 1735 finally agreed to the so-called Velensche equivalent . In this settlement, which resulted in the seizure of the fief by the lordly court chamber, the operating family, who with their five years resistance to the fiefdom only wanted to raise the compensation price, received in return the leasehold with the lordly grain tithing at roadstead and Brade in the Meppen office of Münster, as well as an indefinite amount of money.

After taking over the business premises from Gottesgabe, the prince-bishop immediately initiated investigations into future development opportunities. As specialist promoters - the sovereign continued to see the property promoters exclusively within himself - he assured himself of the Europe-wide recognized specialist, Baron Joachim Friedrich von Beust . Before his appointment to the bishopric of Münster, von Beust first worked for the Elector and Archbishop of Mainz, who had appointed him Privy Councilor and Salt Director because of his extraordinary services to the Electoral Mainz salt works in Orb, and after his Electoral Mainz period for the King of Denmark, who even appointed him Royal Danish Minister of State because of his equally successful work in the expansion of the salt works in Denmark and Norway. The baron von Beust had earned recognition in particular for the construction of effective and productive thorn graduation houses.

The studies carried out by von Beust showed that the salt mines in Bentlage were to be regarded as the most profitable. Compared to the sites of Huxberg and Rodenberg, whose salt concentration (solderiness) was not particularly high and whose requirements for operating the pumps - neither the Aa flowing there nor the Vechte were rated as suitable for supplying enough water to drive a conveyor wheel - as were not assessed as given, although the conditions at these two salt fields were optimal for a sufficient energy supply from the nearby coal mines in the Ibbenbüren area , the old systems at Bentlage had high soldering points of 3.5, 5.5 and 8 solder, von Beust was able to discover two new sources that were much higher in soldering at this point and the options for operating a water-powered conveyor wheel for mandrel grading were much better, since the supply of water from the Ems guaranteed sufficient drive. While Huxberg and Rodenberg together were found to be good for 2,300 Malter salt, von Beust estimated the possible annual output in Bentlage to be more than three times that: 7,500 Malter.

In addition to the positive assessment that a prince-bishop's state saltworks should be regarded as extremely profitable, the Beusts' investigations brought with it the far less edifying realization that the investment and thus the financial requirements for the re-establishment and expansion of God's gift are enormous and would far exceed the possibilities of the prince-bishop. In addition, considerable doubts about the overall profitability of the prince-bishop's project raised the cathedral chapter, which required approval, against the plans and thus against the sovereign's financial responsibility and promotional status. Ultimately, Clemens August initially decided against state promotional activities, i.e. against a state-run and managed salt works from Gottesgabe and in favor of a private joint-stock company. However, he reserved the right to dissolve the company after three years of operation and to bear the entrepreneurial risk himself. For this purpose, he initially transferred from Beust the entire responsibility for the saltworks in the Hochstift and initiated negotiations with the cathedral chapter, which is also required and authorized to approve this solution. These negotiations must have been extremely controversial, as an agreement was only reached on August 7, 1741 after three years. This agreement - called "Octroy" - referred to the more detailed rights and obligations of the company to be founded later, which was called the Münstersche Salinen-Societät . It was also von Beust's task to bring together the necessary private investors for this stock corporation. The company constitution, which was precisely defined with this "Octroy", considerably restricted the circle of possible investors, since neither other imperial princes nor imperial nobles nor - here the denominational or religious component of the bishopric came before the mercantilist-cameralist goals of the Catholic state of Münster - Jews or members of other religions not tolerated in the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation were allowed to find acceptance into the Society. Nevertheless, von Beust managed to get enough shareholders to provide investors from representatives of the aristocracy from the Munsterland region, as well as representatives of the court chamber and the rest of the prince-bishop's civil service. The society was founded on December 23, 1743 and had rights of disposal over all brine springs in Bentlage, Huxberg and Rodenberg and also had the right to search for and use other brine springs. For this purpose, it was granted far-reaching additional rights, such as an express right to confiscate land for the construction of above-ground facilities against financial and appropriate compensation.

Von Beust himself, who as General Salt Director was meanwhile himself a prince-bishop's public servant, and his brother Karl Leopold von Beust held shares in the new company as the first draftsman. Both together had shares worth an impressive 8,000 Reichstalers. Von Beust was therefore not only a specialist but also - at least in part - a material promoter of the new salt works, God's gift. Although a fragmentation of the shareholder structure was to be prevented by restricting the free tradability of the shares - no shareholder was allowed to sell shares to third parties against the will of the society as a whole through bilateral legal transactions among living company shares - the salt shares of the society were nevertheless soon widely diversified, since a unilateral legal transaction, namely the legal succession as a shareholder for wills and legal heirs, was possible without restriction. It goes without saying that a dividend was paid out to the shareholders. This dividend was paid out for the first time in 1753 in the amount of 50 Reichstalers per full share (1,000 Reichstalers) and was therefore not too low at 5%. A dividend was paid out every two years throughout the 18th century - and beyond - at a fluctuating amount of 50-150 Reichstalers. A total of 144,750 thalers were paid out up to the year 1785, which corresponds to an average annual return on the subscribed capital of 11.5%. Baron von Beust held a special position among the shareholders. In addition to the regular dividend, he was entitled to an eighth part of the gross annual surplus and a flat-rate payment of 90-110 thalers. This point seems particularly noteworthy, as it makes it clear that a performance-based remuneration element for the most important specialist promoter of the Gottesgabe company and not exclusively a fixed salary that does not necessarily encourage the management's sense of responsibility has been chosen. With this, the works constitution established an important incentive for the management and ensured the successful economic development of the Gottesgabe salt works for many decades. Despite this company constitution regarding the shareholder structure , the Saline Gottesgabe was only partially a capitalist acquisition company, as it represents a stock corporation , since the sovereign restricted the rights of disposal of the shareholders in the salt works by expressly stating an in §§ 1 and 23 of the "Octroy" Reservation of the princely righteous at all salt springs in the duchy of Münster.

Nevertheless, the society was not a tenant in the classical sense, as it was expressly exempt from paying the tithes of salt to the sovereign. Although the company was exempt from tithing, the works constitution, as it was written down in the "Octroy", provided further rules and duties with regard to the distribution of profits and income. For example, the company had the duty to pay the ongoing compensation payments to the monastery in Bentlage as the owner of the land confiscated by the company for its facilities. In addition to this monetary benefit, the monastery received 14 tons of salt annually, or 10 Malter salt in the second half of the 18th century. In addition, the society had to provide the members of the cathedral chapter annual benefits in kind in salt, which varied according to the rank and office of the cathedral chapter members. It remains astonishing that the sovereign himself went completely empty-handed and thus limited his mercantilist-cameralist intentions with the Godsend project to the foreign trade aspects. In addition to the express decree of the cathedral chapter, this may also have been the reason why the society never received a salt trading monopoly . In contrast to many other territories of the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation, the Hochstift relied on free trade instead of mercantist-cameralist protectionism .

With regard to the operator structure, the works constitution of the Gottesgabe saltworks was formulated as follows. At the top stood the General Salt Director, personified in von Beust. He had both superordinate business management and detailed business engineering powers. From an economic point of view, especially from a financial accounting point of view, the General Salt Director had to work with a so-called Salt Actuarius, who was also an official of the Court Chamber . This ensured that the sovereign was always well informed about the financial situation of the company. The management of the salt works as a technical and commercial operation on site was the responsibility of a salt administrator or a salt inspector who was required to report to the General Salt Director once a week. This actual management, consisting of three to four people, was assisted by a three-person commission, which was recruited from members of the society, acting as a control body, as it were. From today's perspective, the duties of the General Salt Director corresponded to that of a full-time managing director or chairman of the board, that of the Salzactorius to that of a commercial manager and that of the salt administrator or salt inspector to that of an operations manager, while the membership committee performed the tasks of a modern supervisory board. This structure makes it clear that the Saline Gottesgabe was an extremely modern company in its time not only from a technical point of view, but also from an organizational point of view.

When the company was being set up, von Beust was assisted by the chief construction director and chief engineer Johann Conrad Schlaun as another specialist promoter . Schlaun managed and supervised the construction of the entire plant. Business began on February 3, 1745. The expanded boiler house had three large boiling pans . Simultaneously with the new Siedehaus a huge for the conditions at that time was Dorngradierhaus built, which - under the conceptual leadership of Beust and execution Schlaun - made for modern requirements satisfied. The construction work lasted until 1751. But as early as 1747, the ultra-modern Gottesgabe salt works was producing in full as part of the planned salt production . In total, the investments in construction and expansion between the years 1743 to 1751 devoured 63,130 Reichstaler. In addition to the initial investment by the shareholders, the costs were covered by a further special payment per share of 1,366 Reichstalers as well as by the undistributed profits of the salt works.

Von Beust attached great importance to skilled workers and therefore had workers recruited from various salt pans that were also under his control, such as Salzungen, Kreuznach, Creuzburg and Sulza. The procurement and selection of qualified personnel was necessary, as boiling and grading was still a special craft in the 18th century. Altogether between 25 and 30 workers and an undetermined number of day laborers were employed on the saline Gottesgabe in the 18th century. The workforce was divided into four groups - boilers, graders, pumpers and drills - each headed by a boiling, grading, art and mountain master. All saline employees and workers received benefits in cash, in kind and in kind, such as salt, free accommodation, heating and light. As a special privilege they enjoyed, who formed a closed stand in the Hochstift Münster, among other things complete personal freedom of movement and - as far as they did not pursue a second, taxable gainful activity - exemption from taxes and duties. In addition, they were exempt from general military service. They were all subject to their own saltworks jurisdiction, unless they were civil law disputes or criminal offenses that were not related to the saltworks operation. A special privilege that the Society possessed in connection with the selection and deployment of personnel in the confessionally narrow bishopric of Münster was the express prince-bishop's permission to also employ workers of Protestant denomination. Although this special right, which was exceptional for the time, is repeatedly emphasized in the literature and valued as a characteristic of modern management, the actual importance is likely to have been marginal in view of the fact that the Protestant workers received a work permit but at the same time allowed them to practice their religion within the Münster state borders and even burial in the Rheine cemetery was strictly prohibited. Overall, however, the mix of money and benefits in kind in terms of remuneration as well as the special privileges of freedom of movement, tax and duty exemption and exemption from military service in an extremely warlike century formed an interesting incentive system for the recruitment of skilled workers and for the motivation of the employees and workers employed . But also with regard to the optimization of the operational processes, von Beust tried to set motivational incentives for the workers. The pan sludge, which often contaminates the boiling process, was delivered to the Ibbenbüren glassworks as so-called saline fertilizer . For this, the boilers received a special fee, so that they too had a special monetary incentive to always take care of cleaning the pans. In this respect too, the Gottesgabe saltworks at Rheine was run with comparatively modern instruments.

From the aspect of modern and future-oriented management and also from a socio-political point of view, another element of the company was of particular importance. The saline Gottesgabe was one of the first companies in the 18th century to have health care and disability insurance for its workers. This relief fund granted every employee support in the event of illness and death. In the event of illness, a worker received a full three months of continued wages ; in the case of lifelong disability, he received a monthly allowance of 4 Reichstalers. The cash register paid 5 Rtlr to the funeral costs. at. The widow of a worker who died in the service of the salt works also received 4 Rtlr. monthly if the deceased had been in the service of the salt works for at least 10 years. For each child the widow received 15 sgr. monthly until they remarried or until their children joined the salt works. The orphans of an injured worker who had been left behind were placed in other families, and the health insurance fund paid them 1 ½ Rtlr. Unfortunately, accidents did occur, so that without the welfare institution set up by the Society it would have been difficult to find miners. The funding of the relief fund worked on the principle of solidarity . For every Reichstaler wage, the workers and employees had to pay 3 pfennigs into a so-called Büxengeldkasse . It was also possible for the married women of the employees to become a member of the fund if the spouses insured them with an annual contribution of 2 Reichstalers and 18 silver groschen. With this form of social insurance , the Saline Gottesgabe could also be regarded as one of the most modern companies of the 18th century in terms of socio-political and industrial welfare aspects.

While the Gottesgabe saltworks were exemplary in terms of the works constitution, management and operational aspects, it lagged behind other salt works of its time in terms of energy supply, i.e. the type of firing, and thus in terms of overall profitability . The comparative disadvantages of the firing system arose from the fact that throughout the 18th century the settlement continued to use wood and peat, which are much more expensive than coal. This takes a bit of a miracle, possessed the Münster'sche Salinen-Societät gem. Section 9 of the “Octroy” has the right to search for and use hard coal in addition to exploiting the brine springs in the Hochstift. The company did search for hard coal deposits on site, but without any success, which is also surprising since the Ibbenbüren area had hard coal deposits, which were only exploited in the 19th century. While the fuels wood and peat as energy sources were already quite costly production factors in themselves, the cost structure of the Gottesgabe saltworks was aggravated by the fact that both fuels had to be transported from far away in the anything but densely wooded bishopric of Münster. In addition to the higher acquisition costs of the two obsolete energy sources, the above-average transport costs were added.

Ultimately, the question arises to what extent and with what economic policy means the prince-bishop's sovereign contributed to the success of the Saline Gottesgabe zu Rheine. As already mentioned, the society was forbidden from a salt production and trading monopoly in the Hochstift by entering the cathedral chapter. In this respect, the Gottesgabe saltworks had another comparative disadvantage compared to other saltworks, such as the Königsborn saltworks or Rehme in Brandenburg-Prussia, which was set by the state framework. At the same time, there was no import ban on foreign salt in the Hochstift as in other territories of the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation. Since the sovereign had obviously decided in favor of complete free trade in the good north German tradition, the own salt works was exposed to unlimited competition with other salt works and salt productions. In view of the capacities of the brine springs and the actual Gottesgabe saltworks, Clemens August had no other choice in this context: although the saltworks - apart from only occasional fluctuations due to difficulties in brine extraction and due to unfavorable weather conditions - very quickly became a respectable amount in salt production in the amount of 300 (metric) tons and was able to maintain this level over the entire 18th century, it was nevertheless only able to cover a quarter of the salt requirements of the entire bishopric over the entire period.

The remaining requirements in the Principality of Münster had to be covered by importing foreign salt. The Ems area was supplied with salt from Lüneburg on the one hand and Scottish salt on the other, which was of poor quality, but significantly cheaper than the salt from the Gottesgabe saltworks. In the Münster area of Coesfeld and Dülmen, the population covered their salt needs with products from the Brandenburg-Prussian saltworks in Königsborn, while Ahaus and Bocholt supplied themselves with the widely used Dutch salt. The Münster offices of Meppen, Cloppenburg and Vechta took advantage of the competition from the Brandenburg-Prussian saltworks Neusalzwerk zu Rehme, while the Rothenfelde saltworks found a good market in the offices of Warendorf, Sassenberg and Stromberg . The main sales area of the Gottesgabe saltworks in the Münster bishopric were only the offices of Rheine, Bevergen and Horstmar as well as Münster itself, where the salt from the Gottesgabe saltworks was always not only the best but also the cheapest salt. Unfortunately, based on the sources, it is no longer possible to determine whether the strong presence of foreign salt in the bishopric of Münster was due to a lack of supply capacity of the Gottesgabe salt works due to the lack of state protection by means of a salt trade monopoly and import ban, or whether the lack of a monopoly and import ban was due to the lack of production capacities was due to the gift of God. Whatever the case, from a mercantilist-cameralist point of view, the Rheine salt works was a total allocative failure. In spite of strong foreign competition, the Gottesgabe saltworks was able to maintain its market share and was not displaced from the salt market in the bishopric of Münster by the influx of cheaper salt from Holland, Scotland, Brandenburg-Prussia, Werl in Electoral Cologne and from northern Germany. This was only partly due to the sovereign subsidies. The main reason for the market stability of Gottesgaber products was their quality. In the first years of construction, the God's gift saltworks struggled a little with mediocre demand, but the outstanding quality of the salt, which was described as extremely pure and dazzling white and valued for its firm, coarse grain, quickly caught on on the market . In this respect, too, the company incentive system made itself felt very clearly, especially for the workers in the boiling houses and the technically well-founded specialist promoter of Joachim Friedrich von Beust. Beusts' declared intention was to generate the market through quality and not through quantity:

“What gives preference to our salt is its purity and brightness. So I like that the people see from experience what a difference in quality is compared to other salts ” .

Due to the high quality, the salt sales of the Gottesgabe saltworks were consistently good throughout the 18th century and fully ensured the profitability of the company. In the last two decades of the period under review, the demand for Gottesgaber salt far exceeded its supply, so that around 1790 the Münster'sche Salinen-Societät even had to allocate purchase quotas to the numerous merchants and trading companies.

Despite the lack of a state monopoly and protectionism policy, the saltworks could not complain about a lack of energetic sovereign support within the framework of state economic policy. Clemens August only chose completely different means than the large number of other sovereigns. The Prince-Bishop of Münster also chose direct interventionist instruments, although he renounced protectionist measures: the salt wagons and all truckloads of the saltworks were exempt from all customs and road tolls in all areas of the bishopric of Münster and remained so, for example, as the council of the city of Rheine In 1770, after a new pavement was laid, road money was levied on every other car. The exemption from these taxes, which remained for the wagons and haulage of all other branches and salt transports of foreign traders, makes it clear that the Münster sovereign worked with hidden subsidies at this point in order to give the salt works comparative advantages in the area of transport costs, at least on its territory To provide.

In addition, Clemens August dedicated himself to the state funding of the Saline Gottesgabe as part of the infrastructure policy . The focus of this policy was the construction of a 3.8 km long salt canal from the pumping station to the Ems. The construction of this canal, which was urgently needed to supply energy to the pumping operation, had the purpose of supplying the impact water for the water wheel from the Ems next to the graduation tower. As mentioned above, the Society had the right to seize land for this purpose, but the Bentlage Monastery, through whose land the canal was to be drawn, defended itself considerably against the project. It took several strict interventions by Prince-Bishop Clemens August to finally break this resistance. The canal finally extended from the Ems junction at Rheine at the Princely Mill to the re-confluence with the Ems that of the third lock. Its gradient was 14 ¼ feet to the graduation water wheel. In addition to the Saline Canal , the construction of the Max-Clemens-Canal was an important regional infrastructure project to support the Saline Gottesgabe: The prince-bishop viewed the canal as a sovereign monopoly in order to increase his income. Since the Ems from Bentlage was not completely navigable upstream to Greven, he promised himself a better ship connection from his northern parts of the country to Munster, especially with regard to the trade in salt from the salt works of Gottesgabe. The direction and course of the canal was influenced by the mercantilistic trade-promoting perspective of a reciprocal fertilization of the canal and saltworks project. So Clemens August knew perfectly how to combine his fiscal policy intentions with the sales-promoting aspects of the saline divine gift in his infrastructure policy.

In summary, the following can be said for the operational activities of the saline Gottesgabe zu Rheine and the sovereign framework conditions in the 18th century: Like many other salt works in the territories of the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation, the (new) construction and expansion of the saline Gottesgabe emerged sovereign initiative. Unlike his princely colleagues, however, Clemens August von Bayern decided neither to lease it to a private individual entrepreneur nor to establish a state-fiscal company or a partnership-based cooperative solution. Rather, the prince-bishop gave preference to the works constitution of a capitalist commercial company in the form of the Munster'schen Salinen-Societät, which came about on the basis of civil law between him as the sovereign, the cathedral chapter requiring approval and the private shareholders. The focus of this solution was a civil law contract, the "Octroy", which exhaustively regulated the rights and obligations of all parties involved. Nevertheless, the sovereign retained considerable influence on the management of the company, and therefore on the operational business activities, both through the appointment of the specialist promoters and through the skillful appointment of the shareholders, who were mostly not only private entrepreneurs, but also state officials or members of the cathedral chapter. When selecting the chief specialist promoter, the sovereign placed great emphasis on business and technical knowledge, which underlines the importance that the saltworks should have in the context of the Prince-Bishop's economic policy. Although the sovereign did not shy away from the entrepreneurial risk for himself in his original plans, he left the promotional role to the private shareholders, who - as just mentioned - were also state officials, partly out of sheer financial hardship, partly due to resistance from the co-determining cathedral chapter . The distribution of profits corresponded to the non-existent entrepreneurial risk, hence the non-existent state liability: the saltworks was exempt from tithing and did not have to pay any other monetary or monetary benefits to the sovereign. In addition, Clemens August refrained from intervening directly in the works constitution and operational management of the salt works and thus secured a modern-looking level of private autonomy in the age of state-fiscal companies and manufacturers . The company as such was freed from the constraints of a state-prescribed allocation policy with regard to the salt supply, as the sovereign consciously decided against a state salt trade monopoly and against a salt import ban for foreign salt into his territory and thus preferred a free trade policy based on North German tradition . Clemens August von Bayern left it with a moderate subsidy policy and a vigorously pursued infrastructure policy in order to generate its own fiscal advantages for the Münster'sche Salinen-Societät by increasing free trade and change.

literature

G. Boldt: Expert opinion on the legal relationships of the salt works “Gottesgabe” to Rheine. Rheine 1956.

D. Burgholz: Salt production and politics during the decline of the old saltworks. In: H.-J. Teuteberg (Hrsg.): Westphalian economy at the beginning of the "machine age". (= Studies on economic, social and technological history. Volume 6). Dortmund 1988, pp. 247-267.

G. von Detten: Westphalian economic life in the Middle Ages. Paderborn 1902.

H. Ditt: Structure and Change in Westphalian Agricultural Societies. (= Publications of the Provincial Institute for Westphalian Regional and Folklore Studies. Series 1, No. 13). Munster 1965.

H.-H. Emons, H.-H. Walter: With the salt through the millennia. History of white gold from prehistoric times to the present. Leipzig 1984.

H.-H. Emons, H.-H. Walter: With the salt through the millennia. History of white gold from prehistoric times to the present. 2., through Edition. Leipzig 1986.

H.-H. Emons, H.-H. Walter: Old salt pans in Central Europe. On the history of evaporated salt production from the Middle Ages to the present. Leipzig 1988.

M. Fessner: coal and salt. The long way to the industrial Ruhr area. (= Publications from the German Mining Museum Bochum. No. 73). Bochum 1998.

Förderverein Kloster / Schloss Bentlage eV (Ed.): 1100 years of Bentlage. On the history of an old cultural landscape. Rheine 1991.

W. Friday (Ed.): The Salt City. Old European structures and early modern innovations. (= Studies on Regional History. Volume 19). Bielefeld 2004.

A. Führer: History of the City of Rheine. Rheine 1974.

R.-J. Gleitsmann: Shortage of raw materials and solution strategies. The problem of pre-industrial timber shortages. In: F. Duve (ed.): Technologie und Politik. Reinbek 1980, pp. 104-154.

R.-J. Gleitsmann: Aspects of the resource problem from a historical perspective. In: Scripta Mercaturae. 15, 1981, No. 2, pp. 33-89.

M. Hart: Salt Tax and Salt Trade in the Low Countries. In: Hocquet, J.-C. (Ed.): Le roi, le marchand et le sel. Lille 1987, pp. 293-312.

A. Huyssen: The brine springs of the Westphalian Chalk Mountains, their occurrence and presumed origin. Berlin 1856.

W. Kaiser: The history of the company and the state influence in the salt industry in Hanover and Westphalia up to the end of the 18th century. Cologne 1938.

W. Kliche: The shipping on the Ruhr and Lippe in the 18th century. In: Journal of the Bergisches Geschichtsverein. 37, 1904, pp. 3-19.

J. Kloosterhuis: "... spoiled by villen Orteren von allerseidtz war folk ...". The consequences of the Spanish-Dutch War (1566–1609) for the county of Mark. In: The Märker. 32, 1983, pp. 125-132, pp. 162-173, pp. 200-211.

J. Kloosterhuis: princes, councilors, subjects. The County of Mark, its local administrative bodies and the government of Kleve. In: The Märker. 35, 1986, pp. 3-25, 76-87, 104-117, 147-164.

SR Krause: "The richest and most productive mines in Grafschaft Mark". Pre-industrial coal mining in Gogericht Schwelm. Wuppertal 2002.

R. Leroy: The structural and technical development of the “Gottesgabe” saltworks in Bentlage near Rheine and its significance as a technical monument. Aachen 1984.

K.-H. Ludwig: Mountain regulations, technical and social change in the transition from the Middle Ages to the modern age. In: History of Technology. 52, 1985, pp. 179-196.

C. von Looz-Corswarem: The western parts of the country. In: J. Ziechmann (ed.): Panorama of the Friderician time. Frederick the Great and his epoch. A manual. Bremen 1985, pp. 695-704.

A. Meister: Commerce, trade, industry and mining until the beginning of the 19th century. In: A. Meister (Ed.): Die Grafschaft Mark. Festschrift to commemorate the 300-year union with Brandenburg-Prussia. Volume 1, Dortmund 1909.

M. Murdfield: History of the saline Gottesgabe near Rheine i. W. along with other articles on the economic history of the Münsterland. Munster 1922.

P. Piasecki: New technologies, rationalization and the development of the workforce structure in the Westphalian salt pans from the middle of the 18th to the beginning of the 20th century. In: T. Hellmuth, E. Hiebl (Ed.): Cultural history of salt: 18th to 20th century. Vienna / Munich 2001, pp. 75–88.

P. Piasecki: Investments in the Westphalian salt pans in the age of industrialization. In: Thesis. 4/5, 2002, pp. 74-83.

H.-J. Puhle: Prussia: development and undesirable development. In: H.-J. Puhle, H.-U. Wehler (Ed.): An overview of Prussia. Göttingen 1980, pp. 11-42.

JK von Schröder: The mining law conditions in the area of the former Prince Diocese of Münster and their aftermath in the present. In: Journal for Mining Law . 96, 1955, pp. 98-156.

RP Sieferle: The underground forest. Energy crisis and industrial revolution. Munich 1982.

JD von Steinen: Westphalian history. Part 2, Lemgo 1755.

C. Stockmann, A. Stockmann: The salt works "Gottesgabe" in Rheine. A contribution to salt production and salt marketing in Westphalia. (= Settlement and landscape in Westphalia. Volume 25). Munster 1998.

L. Suhling: Mining, Territorial Rule and Technological Change. Process innovations in the mining industry of the Renaissance using the example of Central European silver production. In: U. Troitzsch, G. Wohlauf (Hrsg.): Technology history. Historical contributions and recent essays. Frankfurt am Main 1980, pp. 139-179.

H.-H. Walter: Joachim Friedrich von Beust and his work on the salt pans. In: The cut. 42, 1990, pp. 26-43.

W. Westhoff, W. Schlueter: History of the German mining law. Edited from the estate by Oberbergrat Wilhelm Schlueter. In: Journal for Mining Law. 50, 1909, pp. 27-95, pp. 230-269 and pp. 357-386.

F. Wiemers: The salt system on the Ems and Weser under Brandenburg-Prussia. A contribution to the genesis of the city of Bad Oeynhausen. Munster 1915.

J. Ziechmann: Features of European economic and trade policy. In: J. Ziechmann (Hrsg.): Panorama of the Friderician time, Frederick the Great and his epoch. A manual. Bremen 1985, pp. 471-477.

Web links

Commons : Saline Gottesgabe - Collection of images, videos and audio files

Landschaftsverband Westfalen-Lippe: Park at the Gottesgabe salt works in LWL geodata culture
360 ° panoramic image of the Gottesgabe saltworks in the Westphalian Cultural Atlas (requires Flash player )
Website of the Association for the Promotion of Saline Gottesgabe eV , accessed on April 30, 2019

52.298333333333 7.4230555555556Coordinates: 52 ° 17 ′ 54 ″ N , 7 ° 25 ′ 23 ″ E