The Maritime Trade of the Smaller Bristol Channel Ports in the Sixteenth Century
Introduction :: North Devon Ports :: Port of Gloucester :: Port of Cardiff :: Port of Milford :: Conclusion :: Appendices :: Bibliography
Chapter Three: The Port of Bridgwater
Customs data for the port of Bridgwater records that the region was heavily dependent on the manufacturing and export of cloth in the early decades of the century. There was subsequently a steep decline in this as well as other aspects of overseas trade in the second half of the sixteenth century, particularly in the years leading up to 1600. However, a substantially different picture is presented by the data in local port records, and this chapter will draw on these and other sources to suggest that Somerset’s marine trade was not only greater than that described in the customs accounts, but that the port’s prosperity may have actually increased rather than diminished over the course of the century.
Bridgwater was the head port for a jurisdiction which
extended from Porlock Bay in the west to the River Axe in the east, covering
what is effectively the coastline of present day Somerset. Customs accounts
were compiled in two parts: for the port of Bridgwater itself, and for the
member port of Minehead in the west of the county. Additionally, the Bridgwater
part of the port’s accounts sometimes specified two creeks through which trade
was conducted: Combwich downstream of the town of Bridgwater; and Axwater
adjacent to Uphill on the river Axe. ‘Bridgwater’ thus confusingly referred to
the whole customs jurisdiction, to the coastal area encompassing the two creeks
in the vicinity of Bridgwater, and to the town itself. In order to distinguish
these three meanings ‘port’ will be used here to describe the geographical
jurisdiction of the head port including the member port of Minehead; the ‘head
port’ of Bridgwater will describe the geographical area proximate to the town
of Bridgwater including the creeks of Combwich and Axwater; and the ‘harbour’
of Bridgwater will refer to the moorings and quay immediate to the town.
The Bridgwater Water Bailiffs’ Accounts
As well as the customs accounts, local port records survive for the harbour at Bridgwater which were compiled by the town’s water bailiffs. Similar records survive for Chester, Exeter, Southampton and Yarmouth, and it has been suggested that these provide a more accurate record of trade than the Exchequer customs returns.[1] Maryanne Kowaleski argued that as local tolls flowed directly to the local community and were used for the maintenance of local facilities, it was unlikely that there would have been any tolerance of an office holder responsible for collecting such tolls who abused his position by accepting bribes to allow merchants to forego them. By contrast the customs officers had little to lose and much to gain by accepting bribes, and the revenue which they collected was sent to the Exchequer in London with no direct benefit to their local community.[2] Furthermore local tolls were levied for relatively small amounts which made the incentive to avoid them much lower. This line of reasoning would seem to be even more true for the Bridgwater water bailiffs’ accounts as these were not local taxes as such, but largely relate to charges levied for physically handling merchandise. Furthermore, unlike the Chester, Southampton and Exeter local port records, there is no indication that exemption was granted to certain groups of people, or at certain times of the year.[3] The prime candidates for such an exemption would have been the burgesses and mayor, but they were shown as having paid the same charges as others listed in the accounts.[4] The church or local nobility are other possible candidates but charges were listed against merchants in connection with these parties, such as the four tuns of wine sent to ‘my Lord of Glastonbury’ in 1530, or the charge made to the Prior of Taunton the same year, or a charge to ‘my lord justys’ or the ‘Bishop of Bath’ in 1550.[5] Nor was there any interruption in the sequence of charges made for goods during the time of the Lent or St James’ Fairs: the 1587 accounts specifically record a charge made during ‘the fayer week’.[6]
There are a number of potential difficulties which must be acknowledged when comparing these different sets of financial records. The Exchequer accounts do not necessarily record the date a ship entered port, but the date that the cargo was declared to the customs officer, and although these were sometimes the same thing, this was not necessarily always the case. Likewise the water bailiffs’ accounts principally comprise a record of cash receipts which do not therefore always closely follow the actual arrival or departure of ships. Although both sets of accounts had the same financial year from Michaelmas to Michaelmas, there was not necessarily a common cut off method, and goods might appear in one financial year in one set of records which were not entered in the same year in the other therefore. A further problem is that the water bailiffs’ accounts were not compiled in a consistent manner, and the information which the earlier accounts contain often lacks sufficient detail or precision to enable them to be linked directly to the customs accounts. There are also a very limited number of instances when the two sets of accounts survive for the same year: there are two water bailiff accounts, for 1540/41 and 1544/45, which correspond to the same full years as the overseas customs accounts; one year 1599/1600 which corresponds to the coastal account; and one year, 1597/98, for which the complete trio survives of overseas customs, coastal customs and water bailiffs accounts.[7] These problems are not insuperable however. As will be made clear below there are instances when ships, their masters or the goods freighted can be definitely identified as matching in both sets of accounts. Turning to the wider picture of total volumes recorded in the two series of documents, whilst an exact tally should not be expected, for some goods the level of difference is so large that it cannot be due to differences in year-end accounting procedures or other technical reasons. Alternative explanations will therefore be offered.
Agricultural Commodities.
Somerset was primarily an agricultural and cloth producing region, and its exports reflected this. The most frequently occurring and consistent entry in the accounts was for the export of beans, for which Bridgwater was renowned. Leland observed in his journey through the southwest made between 1535 and 1543 that,
There is a great plenty of benes in this quarter and inward to the landes. And of these benes there is yn a manner a staple at Bridgwater when corne is dere in the partes beyond the sea.[8]
Other agricultural commodities exported were wheat, barley, malt and hops.
Table 3.1 Port of Bridgwater: exports of agricultural commodities (weys).
|
|
Beans |
Wheat |
Barley / Malt |
|
1506/7 |
438 |
- |
13 |
|
1510/11 |
730 |
5 |
7 |
|
1528/29 |
132 |
- |
- |
|
1541/42 |
242 |
28 |
21 |
|
1560/61 |
352 |
- |
15 |
|
1583/84 |
145 |
15 |
1 |
|
1585/86 |
21 |
- |
1 |
|
1597/98 |
4 |
- |
15 |
Table 3.1 indicates that recorded foodstuff exports for 1528/29 were considerably lower than those for 1510/11, but this may be explained by an exceptionally bad harvest in that year rather than a lack of demand. Conversely exports for 1541/42 were higher due to the requirement to provision English troops campaigning in Ireland; many entries in the account make specific reference to these shipments being for the lord lieutenant of Ireland to this end.[9] The high figure for 1583/84 is explained both by a year of good harvest, and also by the revival of overseas trade following the lifting of a Spanish embargo of English trade. Both 1586 and 1597 again suffered poor harvests, but also hostilities with Spain were renewed in 1585. Despite these fluctuations the customs accounts nevertheless demonstrate a clear and dramatic fall in agricultural exports between the opening and close of the century.
This information must however, be considered in the light of the customs duties levied, which were doubled in 1558, and subsequently increased again for some products including beans.[10] Moreover, as Chapter Two outlined a license was required to export a range of products including most foodstuffs. Licenses were granted to Sir Edward Baynton in 1531 for instance, to buy beans in Brentmarsh and export them through Bridgwater, and to three men in 1557 to supply the inhabitants of Waterford with wheat, malt and rye.[11] But the incentive to export goods without resource to a license was strong, and raising the customs tariff also raised the incentive to evade duty. It is known that such evasion was widespread elsewhere in the country, and there is evidence that the practice was rife in Somerset as well.[12] A study of John Smythe, a leading Bristol merchant who began his trading career in Bridgwater, and is described in Chancery cases of the period as ‘late of Bridgwater’, has found that all of his exports of grain from Bristol were illegitimate to some extent, with as little as one fifth of the actual cargo being declared.[13] In 1547 Smythe arranged to load a delivery of butter ‘at Wyngod’s pill by Rooksbridge in Bryntmarche’ on the Axe, a cargo for which he neither had a license nor made a declaration to customs.[14] Similarly, a case bought in 1549 against John Newport, a leading Bridgwater merchant, alleged that he conspired with the controller of customs in the accepting of bribes to allow the export of unlicensed beans and wheat to Spain and Ireland.[15] The existence of this case does not in itself prove that John Newport was engaged in customs evasion, since it was made under a writ of qui tam. However, such an allegation must have been made against a background that would allow it some credibility and it cannot have been totally implausible.
The customs records show that beans were exported through Axwater, which accounted for half of the declared loadings for this product in the half year returns for 1589/90, although usually considerably less than this. Axwater lacked a permanent customs official, and a comment attached to a list of expenses incurred by the customs clerk in 1590 makes clear that the customer’s authority was far from established there,
My charges 8 days at Exwater with my hors
amongst unrewly men which hav almost cost me my lyff as it is well known that
no man willingly will deale there but Jonne in person, for that no man else
will do it.[16]
It seems highly unlikely therefore that Axwater’s returns would have been a full and fair reflection of trade from the creek, and the likelihood is that this was a major centre for illicit trade in beans and other agricultural commodities.
The association of beans with Axwater may be a reason for their relative absence from the Bridgwater water bailiff’s accounts along with other agricultural exports. However there is one instance in March 1598 when the bailiffs’ accounts recorded the loading of four and a half weys of malt ‘to the Irish boats’, which can be matched with the overseas customs accounts where they are entered as three weys aboard two Wexford craft: 50 percent more was loaded than was declared to customs therefore.[17] This is the only definite corroboration of evasion of customs for agricultural goods, but it makes clear that such evasion took place even at the officially sanctioned quay where the customs officials were resident.
Cloth
It was cloth, not beans, however which was Somerset’s biggest declared export in terms of value, and the customs accounts reflect the rich variety of this manufacture: Dunsters, Bridgwaters, Tavistock Blues, White Moltons, Taunton Reds, Bristol Frieze and Devonshire Dozens, as well as the standard broadcloth are amongst the types listed. Table 3.2 expresses customs data for cloth exports using the methodology described in Chapter Two and based on an index of 100 in 1506/07.
Table 3.2 Port of Bridgwater: index of cloth exports.[18]
|
Year |
Index |
|
1506/07 |
100 |
|
1510/11 |
74 |
|
1528/29 |
252 |
|
1540/41 |
93 |
|
1541/42 |
191 |
|
1544/45 |
150 |
|
1560/61 |
69 |
|
1583/84 |
31 |
|
1585/86 |
18 |
|
1597/98 |
5 |
The decline in Somerset’s cloth trade through the local ports is less exceptional when considered in the national context for the reasons set out in Chapter Two. The Somerset exports recorded in the customs accounts examined here differ from the national picture however in that national cloth exports peaked in 1551, rather than in the late 1520s.[19] These figures are not necessarily representative of the region’s overall cloth exports however, as Somerset clothiers also exported through south coast ports, such as Lyme. Neither should a decline in exports be interpreted as a straightforward indicator of regional economic decline. Towards the end of the century Somerset clothiers, like their counterparts in Devon, adopted new manufacturing techniques in response to changing market conditions and switched to making lighter cloths for which there was greater demand. The end of the century shows shipments of these ‘new draperies’ such as that made in 1588 by the Taunton merchants, Thomas Gybons, Thomas Davey and Thomas Fysher who shipped 24 pieces of bayes and 30 pieces of sayes to La Rochelle, or by James Quirke who shipped Manchester Cottons from Minehead to Bayonne in 1597.[20] The new draperies were considerably more labour intensive to produce and were reported as needing the employment of three times the number of those required to produce the equivalent amount of the old broadcloths.[21] This added value product was also more profitable, and the declining volume of cloth exported through the Somerset ports, whilst detrimental to the economy of the ports themselves, was not therefore necessarily detrimental to the economy of the wider county. An allied later sixteenth century development was the creation of a new industry in the manufacture of felt hats made apparent by the importation of ‘hat wool’ from Spain starting in the 1580s, and a small export of hat felt to Wexford in 1592.[22]
Thirty four separate merchants were listed trading cloth in 1506/7, and 58 in the busiest year 1528/29. Even more were involved in other branches of trade, and a marked characteristic of the customs accounts is the sheer number of individuals engaged in commerce, often for a small amount, and many appearing only once. Some of these were undoubtedly crew members such as ‘the pursser off the same ship’ charged by the water bailiffs in 1505/6 for use of the crane to offload Gascon wine, for which he was charged separately from the main cargo.[23] The occupation of other small traders is indicated in the later customs accounts and included bakers, masons, glaziers, yeomen and clothiers.[24] Although many were involved, the cloth trade was however dominated by a small group of powerful and wealthy men: the top three merchants accounted for nearly one third of all cloth exported in 1528/29, and nearly half in 1540/41. Since cloth was being exported in exchange for foreign goods, it follows that these men also dominated the import trade. Thus John Newport, several times mayor of Bridgwater, was alone responsible for twelve percent of all trade entered in the customs accounts for 1540/41. Likewise Richard Godbeare, who was a bailiff in 1588 and mayor in 1592, accounted for fourteen percent of all declared trade in 1583/84. The focus of these rich merchants’ trade was overwhelmingly with continental Europe, to which they shipped cloth and grain, and from which they imported high value commodities such as wine, iron and oil, and luxury items including spices and other exotic products. War with Spain, and changes in the overseas demand for cloth in the later decades of the century, were thus to present major challenges to the financial position of this echelon of society.
Fish
A variety of types of preserved fish from Ireland formed the biggest single import category by value, and were the most frequently occurring entry in the customs records during the first half of the century. Prior to 1550, all overseas fish imports without exception were from Ireland, and many small craft, often with a cargo comprising only fish, are a defining feature of the pre 1558 accounts. Hake, red and white herring, and generically recorded ‘salt fish’ predominated until mid century after which cod from the far Atlantic became increasingly apparent.
Maryanne Kowaleski identified that Minehead imported more fish than any other port in the south west at the end of the fifteenth century.[25] This strong association of the Somerset ports with importing Irish sourced fish continued into the sixteenth century when, in proportionate terms, Minehead and Bridgwater imported far more fish than either the north Devon ports or Bristol. Taking comparable years during the 1540s for example, fish imports represented four percent of the total value of imports at Barnstaple, eight percent at Bristol, but 33 percent into the Somerset ports.[26] In absolute terms, whilst the value of overall imports at Bristol was approximately eighteen times greater than in the port of Bridgwater in the two years 1541/42 and 1545/56, the value of Bristol’s fish imports was only four times greater than that of the port of Bridgwater.
This pattern of trade may perhaps be explained by the presence of Irish communities along the Somerset coast. The association of Minehead with Ireland was evidently of long standing and it would continue to enjoy close relations into the following century. In 1497 Robert Basher from Minehead was involved in a dispute concerning a boat which he had hired to go fishing off the Irish coast, and in 1498 some fishermen had been fined for bringing Irish vagrants from Ireland against the orders of the court.[27] Minehead was alone amongst English towns in being distinguished by John Leland as one which ‘is exceeding ful of Irisch menne’, and there are several instances of the Wexford based name ‘Roche’ in the parish records which support this.[28] In the 1620s the overwhelming number of Irish immigrants in the port were again a concern to the town’s authorities, and in 1633 it was described as a place ‘much frequented by such as pass to and from Ireland’.[29] Minehead was not the only place on the Somerset coast which was associated with the Irish however. It is notable that virtually all the craft entered in customs at Axwater were from Irish ‘home’ ports, and in 1587 a separate section was drawn up in the customs accounts for ‘The Irish in Exwater’.[30] In 1589 separate returns were again prepared for the English and the Irish in the head port of Bridgwater.[31]
Such communities
would also explain an anomalous situation with regard to the origin of carriers
associated with particular ports. Minehead was the only English port in the
Bristol Channel that had the majority of its Irish trade freighted aboard
English ships rather than Irish ships. English
carriers, represented by Minehead ships, accounted for as much as 97 percent of
all fish imports from Ireland in 1544/45. By contrast just few miles along the
coast at Bridgwater there were no English ships recorded trading to Ireland.
This anomaly can perhaps best be explained by the supposition that although
recorded as having a home port of Minehead, ships sailing from there were
effectively owned and operated by the indigenous Irish population. This would
also seem to offer the best explanation for the disproportionate amount of
trade which the Somerset ports conducted with Ireland compared to their English
counterparts in the Channel. This
relationship is expressed graphically in Figure 3.1 using data from the customs
accounts.
It can be seen that Somerset’s recorded imports from Ireland never fell below twenty percent of the value of all imports, whilst in the north Devon ports of Barnstaple and Ilfracombe they never rose above twenty percent, and even fell as low as three percent in 1517/18. Irish imports represented an average of 36 percent of the value of all imports in the Somerset ports compared to only nineteen percent at Bristol. In other words the trading relationship with Ireland was twice as important to the merchants and burgesses in Somerset as it was to their counterparts at Bristol.
An interesting facet to the commercial relationship between
the Somerset and Irish port towns is that it did not simply replicate that
pertaining at Bristol. Figure 3.2 shows that whilst Wexford ships had a growing
and eventually dominant market share in the freighting of Irish goods to the
head port of Bridgwater, they were very poorly represented at Bristol. By
contrast Waterford ships held an analogous position at Bristol, and there was
only one occasion on which a Waterford ship was found in the Bridgwater
accounts represented here.
|
|
|
There does not therefore appear to have been a competitive trading relationship between Bristol and Bridgwater/Minehead or between Waterford and Wexford merchants. Rather it has the characteristic of a market in which there was a degree of tacit cooperation or understanding at some level, resulting in a mutually exclusive commercial relationship between particular Irish and English port towns.
The second half of the century saw major supply side changes in the fish industry which impacted upon both the Minehead and Irish carriers. As far as Minehead was concerned it led to a substantial reduction in the town’s merchant fleet and to the amount of trade conducted through the member port. Andrew Teage and William Donnel, (said to be aged 80 and nearly 100), could remember details of the 32 craft which had used the quay before 1559 in contrast to the two ships and one bark belonging to the town later in the century.[32] From the Irish perspective the changing pattern of trade resulted in the consolidation of the lead which Wexford had begun to gain over other Irish ports: Wexford craft accounted for approximately a quarter of the declared trade freighted to Somerset aboard Irish vessels in 1510/11, over a half in 1541/42, and by 1585 these were the only Irish ships trading to Somerset.
Table 3.3 express overall trade by value using the customs rates valuations, but in order to make a meaningful comparison post-1558 values have been rebased in line with those prior to the 1558 re-rating.
Table 3.3 Port of Bridgwater: imports of fish (£ rebased to 1506/7)
|
Year |
Cod |
Hake/Herring/Salmon/Salt Fish |
|
1506/07 |
- |
491 |
|
1510/11 |
- |
672 |
|
1528/29 |
- |
774 |
|
1540/41 |
- |
318 |
|
1541/42 |
- |
271 |
|
1544/45 |
- |
312 |
|
1560/61 |
11 |
172 |
|
1583/84 |
- |
- |
|
1585/86 |
- |
- |
|
1597/98 |
130 |
76 |
The changes in the method of recording outlined in the previous chapter account for the striking absence of fish imports in these figures between 1560/61 and 1597/98. Confirmation that the lack of fish represents an administrative rather than a real phenomenon is provided by the water bailiffs’ accounts which recorded quantities of herring continuing to arrive in the intervening period.[33] By 1597/98 however, fish imports were again recorded from Ireland and elsewhere. Table 3.3 illustrates that by 1597/98 imports of herring and similar Irish sourced fish were only around a fifth of those at the beginning of the century, and well below their peak. In contrast to earlier in the century when dozens of Irish ships arrived for the Lenten fair at Bridgwater, the customs account for 1597/98 lists only two ships, both called Sunday and both arriving from Wexford.[34] Despite changes in recording from 1563 to 1591, the overarching theme described in table 3.3 therefore is one of a shift from the long established pattern of maritime trade which had been centred around the importation of Irish preserved fish.
This can be attributed to two factors which from the mid 1560s onwards challenged the dominance of Irish sourced fish and of the Irish merchant-carriers engaged in this trade. Firstly, new sources of supply are apparent with the increasing exploitation of the West Atlantic cod fisheries. The first record of fish from the New World occurred in 1550 when six hundredweight of ‘newlande’ fish were recorded at Minehead arriving aboard the Andrew from Swansea.[35] In 1560/61 23 hundredweight of fish ‘de nova terra’ were recorded inbound at Bridgwater; in 1585/86 85 hundredweight from Bristol; and by 1597/98 imports had risen to 358 hundredweight.[36] The first evidence of direct engagement by Somerset ships in the far Atlantic trade occurred in 1597/98 when the Bridgwater ship Vantage returned from Newfoundland with 300 hundredweight of dried fish.[37]
A second factor which mitigated against Irish fish imports was the development of a domestic fish-salting industry during the latter half of the century, which would have reduced the demand for overseas imports. Growth in the domestic fish industry was driven by climatically induced changes in the migratory patterns of herring which began to appear off the north Devon coast from the 1580s, and were noted as being in great abundance off the coast of Pembrokeshire in the final years of the century.[38] By the beginning of the seventeenth century smoke houses were established at Lynmouth in north Devon, which was the centre for a substantial fish industry, and which attracted seasonal workers from Minehead amongst other places.[39] These developments are borne out by data in the coastal accounts. Although two discrete sets of data cannot be taken to represent a trend, it is notable that there were no herring recorded in the coastal customs accounts for 1550/51, but ten years later there were several inward shipments recorded from Ilfracombe, Bristol and Milford.[40]
Wine
The continental European import with the highest overall value was wine. Shipments of Iberian and French wine were substantial and regular imports throughout the century. The water bailiffs’ accounts give an indication of the ultimate destination of some of these: to towns such as Bruton, Axbridge, Milverton, Stowey, Cannington, and Petherton; and to ‘my lord of Glastonbury’, ‘my lord justys’, and the Abbot of Neath.[41]
The profile of the merchants engaged in the wine trade was
substantially the same as that of those engaged in the cloth trade, where a few
wealthy merchants dominated the business. This became increasingly the case as
the century progressed: in 1506/7 the top three merchants accounted for one
third of the tunnage of declared wine imports; by 1528 this had risen to two
thirds; by 1541 nearly three quarters; and by 1560 over nine tenths.
|
Year |
Overseas |
Coastal |
|
1506/07 |
81 |
- |
|
1510/11 |
153 |
- |
|
1528/29 |
62 |
- |
|
1540/41 |
58 |
- |
|
1541/42 |
70 |
- |
|
1544/45 |
32 |
- |
|
1560/61 |
61 |
- |
|
1561/62 |
- |
43 |
|
1583/84 |
123 |
- |
|
1585/86 |
2 |
6 |
|
1597/98 |
69 |
1 |
Table 3.4 indicates that apart from a peak in 1510/11, wine imports were reasonably stable during the first half of the century. The figure for 1544/45 was adversely affected by war with France which disrupted supply, and the partially complete accounts which survive from 1587 to 1590 suggest that similar problems must have been caused by the outbreak of hostilities with Spain. Likewise, improved trading relations with Spain between 1571 and 1584 following the lifting of its embargo on English trade may account for the high imports in 1583/84, which included an exceptionally large single shipment of 45 tuns from Andorlory (Andalusia?), and a further 33 tuns aboard Bridgwater ships bound from Seville.[42] The two tuns recorded two years later could be the result of further hostilities with Spain again disrupting supply. This low figure is somewhat offset however by six tuns which were recorded in the partially surviving coastal accounts for the same year. Similarly, 43 tuns were shipped coastwise to the port in 1561/62, nearly as much as were entered in the overseas accounts for the preceding fiscal year.
A comparison of the water bailiffs’ accounts with the overseas and coastal records for 1597/98 shows that even the combined overseas and coastal customs records may be misleading as to the actual underlying quantities which were landed at Bridgwater.[43] These reveal that the wine entered in the customs accounts does not appear to have necessarily been destined for the harbour itself. Of the 70 tuns recorded in the overseas and coastal accounts, only 45¼ tuns appear to have been unloaded at the quayside in Bridgwater.[44] In particular a substantial cargo of 46½ tuns, which entered inbound from St Lucar aboard the David in April 1598, is not reflected in the bailiffs’ accounts. The question thus arises as to where the David’s cargo was unloaded. One possibility could be that having declared for customs at Combwich downriver of Bridgwater itself, it was then freighted elsewhere in the port, perhaps to Minehead. This would not be apparent from either the Exchequer or water bailiffs’ records as it fell outside the scope of either account. However, this was a considerable volume of wine for so small a port with relatively restricted marketing opportunities in its hinterland, and would have represented the largest import of wine to the member port for over 80 years based on the custom accounts sampled. This therefore seems unlikely. Another possibility is that ships such as the David may have cleared customs at Bridgwater, perhaps at Combwich, before proceeding further up the Bristol Channel. However the relevant coastal account shows that the David was not issued with a certificate for onward transport of its cargo, and that it was not recorded outbound. The most likely destination for the David would have been Bristol, but the Bristol coastal accounts also did not record the David inbound.[45] Despite this, the lack of an entry in the coastal accounts does not necessarily invalidate the supposition that the David offloaded its cargo under another Bristol Channel customs jurisdiction as evidence will be considered in Chapter Four which indicates that coastal certificates were not necessarily required for coastal shipments of wine in the later years of the century.
The possibility that ships such as the David cleared customs and then sailed with their cargo for another domestic port but without a coastal certificate may also offer an explanation for the paradoxical situation whereby some imports of wine which were unloaded at the quayside were not declared to customs. Wine was recorded in the bailiffs’ accounts arriving from Cardiff in December 1597 for instance, but the earliest entry for wine in the relevant Exchequer coastal customs account was not until February 1598.[46] Although both shipments were from Cardiff, they were of different quantities and in different ships and so were clearly unrelated. In total sixteen shipments of wine amounting to 30 tuns appear in the bailiffs’ accounts which cannot be correlated to the customs accounts for 1597/98.
The underlying commercial reality was therefore considerably
more complicated and opaque than the customs records alone suggest. This has
important implications for historians who use such records since it appears
that some ships arrived from overseas with large cargoes and cleared customs in
the head port, but did not necessarily unload their entire cargo, if any at
all, at the harbour. On the other hand, some coastal shipments entered the
harbour which did not require customs clearance and were consequently not
recorded in the coastal port books.
A similar reasoning applies to salt which as previously described was a staple import. The data from the customs accounts is summarised in Table 3.5.
Table 3.5 Port of Bridgwater: imports and inbound coastal shipments of salt (tons)
|
Year |
Overseas |
Coastal |
|
1506/07 |
243 |
- |
|
1510/11 |
419 |
- |
|
1528/29 |
319 |
- |
|
1540/41 |
501 |
- |
|
1541/42 |
197 |
- |
|
1544/45 |
119 |
- |
|
1560/61 |
263 |
- |
|
1561/62 |
- |
29 |
|
1583/84 |
154 |
- |
|
1585/86 |
39 |
25 |
|
1597/98 |
48 |
15 |
Salt was imported from Brittany, Portugal and Spain, and as such was adversely affected by hostilities with France in 1545/46 and with Spain in 1585/86.
The water bailiffs’ accounts contain references to a cellar at Combwich from which salt was collected, and to the shipment of salt from Combwich by lighter to the harbour at Bridgwater.[47] This may account for the wide difference in the quantities recorded in the bailiffs’ and customs accounts, as it appears that salt cleared customs at Combwich, and was unloaded there before being transhipped to smaller boats for passage up the Parrett. Thus in June 1545 two ships from Aveiro, the Trinity and the Rysse Magnor, were recorded in customs with 50 tons and 30 tons respectively. No more than twelve tons of this is definitely identifiable in the water bailiffs’ accounts and it arrived at the harbour aboard lighters in several shipments over a period of weeks.[48] Similarly a Bridgwater ship, the Vantage, entered 25 tons in customs on 9 March 1598, of which twelve tons were recorded inbound by the bailiffs over the remainder of the month.[49] It is not possible to provide a definitive explanation for the unaccounted for thirteen tons in this instance. The Vantage’s salt could have been called off to Bridgwater from Combwich over a much longer period, perhaps even months, and whilst the later entries in the water bailiffs’ accounts do not indicate that the salt was from the Vantage, this does not rule out the possibility that it could have been. Likewise, trade could have been conducted from Combwich to places other than just Bridgwater itself of course, and Combwich may have been the base for a wider coastal trade within the head port’s jurisdiction. Equally, ships such as the Trinity and Rysse Magnor may have offloaded only part of their cargo before proceeding further up the channel in the way suggested for wine.
The majority of the water bailiffs’ accounts contain several different sub-accounts, and goods entered can appear more than once: for unloading, for weighing, for cranage and for carriage for example. Furthermore, quantities are not always given, or where given are not always exactly described, for example ‘a load’. It can therefore be difficult to ascertain precise information, but it appears that approximately only one third of the salt declared to customs for the head port of Bridgwater can be traced as having been unloaded in the town’s harbour for 1540/41 and 1544/45. The 1597/98 bailiffs’ account contains more definitive information, and the relevant figure of 33 percent can be calculated with a greater degree of confidence. The water bailiffs’ accounts therefore show us that only a minority of the salt entered for customs actually reached or passed through the town itself.
Having said this, many shipments of salt were recorded in the bailiffs’ accounts which were not recorded in customs. In 1598 for example, seven tons from Bristol, three tons from Cardiff and one ton from Newport were recorded as having been unloaded at the harbour but which were absent from the relevant coastal accounts.[50] Unlike these particular shipments, the majority of entries in the bailiffs’ accounts do not identify the originating port. Such shipments were both numerous and small, yet their combined total was significant, and in 1597/98 amounted to substantially more than the total tonnage recorded in the customs accounts: a total of 56 tons was entered in the overseas and coastal customs accounts for the head port, but just over 99 tons in the bailiffs’ accounts.[51] In other words, as illustrated in Figure 3.3, during 1597/98 the harbour at Bridgwater received 99¼ tons of which 18 ¼ tons had been cleared through customs, and 81 tons had arrived without custom.
Figure 3.3 Analysis of inbound salt shipments to the head port of Bridgwater 1597/98 (tons)[52]
The most likely explanation for the shipments which were not recorded in customs is that they were of domestically produced salt. These would not necessarily have required customs certification as they had neither paid duty, nor were likely to be exported. Boats were recorded in the water bailiffs’ accounts bringing non-dutiable salt from Cardiff, Newport and Aberthaw, and this is consistent with there having been salt works operating along the south Wales coast in the sixteenth century, including one on the Gower peninsula.[53] Another possible source of domestic supply would have been from the Cheshire brine pits from whence it was shipped down the Severn.
Table 3.6 expresses data from the customs accounts compared
to the water bailiffs’ accounts. Whilst the overseas customs accounts record an
approximately ten fold fall in imports between 1540/41 and 1597/98, the water
bailiffs’ record an increase in the order of one third. 1540/41 is however an
untypical year for imports and a fairer reflection is perhaps that between
1544/45 and 1597/98 when the overseas Exchequer imports fell by around a third compared
to a rise of around a third in the water bailiff’s accounts.
Table 3.6 Imports and inbound coastal shipments of salt to the head port of Bridgwater: comparison of Exchequer and water bailiffs’ accounts (tons). [54]
|
Year |
Overseas Exchequer |
Coastal Exchequer |
Water Bailiffs |
|
1506/07 |
140 |
- |
- |
|
1510/11 |
197 |
- |
- |
|
1528/29 |
39 |
- |
- |
|
1540/41 |
471 |
- |
10 |
|
1541/42 |
74 |
- |
- |
|
1544/45 |
69 |
- |
75 |
|
1560/61 |
106 |
- |
- |
|
1561/62 |
- |
2 |
- |
|
1583/84 |
132 |
- |
- |
|
1585/86 |
32 |
25 (half year only) |
- |
|
1597/98 |
44 |
12 |
99 |
|
1599/1600 |
- |
4 |
125 |
It seems therefore that domestic supplies of salt had to some extent been substituted for those from overseas by the end of the century. Domestically produced salt is likely to have been in high demand in Somerset, as salt produced by boiling was cleaner and contained less contaminates than salt produced further south in France and Portugal by open-air evaporation.[55] Such salt was therefore particularly suitable for use in food preservation, and in the manufacture of butter and cheese which were important local activities. It was also recognised by contemporaries as being ‘well adapted for the curing of herrings’ which, as already described, had developed as an important industry along the coast of Somerset and north Devon in the later sixteenth century.[56]
Bridgwater is unlikely to have been the only harbour in Somerset, or the Bristol Channel, receiving cross channel shipments of salt in this way, and this pattern of trade may have been represented more widely therefore. The rise in inbound shipments of salt to Bridgwater in the second half of the century suggests that associated economic activity may have increased rather than declined in the intervening period, contrary to the impression given by the Exchequer accounts.
Iron and Lead
Lead was mined in the Mendips and was recorded being loaded at Axwater. There is only one instance of lead in the water bailiffs’ accounts so it does not appear to have been handled through the town’s harbour.[57] Table 3.6 shows that recorded lead exports increased substantially in the 1580s. Comparable full year figures are not available after 1585/86, but exports in the surviving parts of the customs records were as follows: for 1588/89, ten tons; for 1589/90, eleven tons; and for 1591, six tons. A similar pattern of increasing exports towards the end of the century was noted from the north Devon ports, the rationale for which it was suggested was an increased demand from Spanish markets for munitions. It is probable that the increased tonnages exported from Bridgwater in the 1580s, whilst nominally being bound for La Rochelle and St John de Luz, were in fact also bound, either directly or indirectly, for Spain in contravention of a government embargo.
Table 3.7 also indicates that a total of fifteen tons of lead was shipped coastwise to Bristol in 1551 and twelve tons to Barnstaple in December 1585, for transhipment overseas to La Rochelle, indicating that there was a significantly greater export trade than suggested from a reading of the overseas accounts alone.[58] Lead ultimately intended for export were as much as 60 percent higher than those recorded in the overseas accounts in 1585/86.
Table 3.7 Port of Bridgwater: exports and outbound coastal shipments of lead (tons)
|
Year |
Lead (overseas) |
Lead (coastal) |
|
1506/07 |
6 |
- |
|
1510/11 |
2 |
- |
|
1528/29 |
2 |
- |
|
1540/41 |
1 |
- |
|
1541/42 |
2 |
- |
|
1544/45 |
- |
- |
|
1550/51 |
- |
15 |
|
1560/61 |
- |
- |
|
1583/84 |
18 |
- |
|
1585/86 |
19 |
12 |
Trade in iron far exceeded that in lead however. During the first half of the century this was sourced from northern Spain, and formed the basis of a small re export trade to southern Ireland. Regular shipments were made, with over two thirds carried aboard Wexford vessels as part of their return cargo. This was never a large trade however, and became insignificant in the second half of the century. Table 3.8 outlines recorded imports of iron from the customs accounts.
Table 3.8 Port of Bridgwater: imports and inbound coastal shipments of iron (tons).
|
Year |
Overseas |
Coastal |
|
1506/07 |
55 |
|
|
1510/11 |
22 |
|
|
1528/29 |
110 |
|
|
1540/41 |
57 |
|
|
1541/42 |
86 |
|
|
1544/45 |
50 |
|
|
1560/61 |
94 |
|
|
1561/62 |
- |
6 |
|
1583/84 |
27 |
|
|
1585/86 |
29 |
|
|
1597/98 |
0 |
6 |
The water bailiffs’ accounts give an indicative sample of the final destinations of this raw material: to the smiths at Yeovil, Long Sutton, Comeytrowe near Taunton, Petherton, Hemyock, Ilminster, Charlinch and many more regional locations, as well as to ‘Hancocke of the forryst’ (of Dean) and ‘a man of the west country’.[59] These records again reveal a large licit trade which is not apparent from a reading of the customs records. They also however reveal a substantial illicit trade.
The Mary of San Sebastian under Master Degas Delarew was a familiar ship in mid-sixteenth century Bridgwater, and was recorded inbound with iron, wine and woad, and outbound with cloth in 1541/42, 1544/45 and 1560/61. John Newport, several times the town’s mayor and its wealthiest and most prominent trader, was often listed as the sole or principal merchant freighting goods aboard this ship, and may therefore have been its owner, or part-owner. In 1545 the Mary made three voyages to Spain returning on 17th March, 27th May and 12th August. In total the Mary declared 50½ tons of iron to customs during the year, of which 41 tons was attributed to Mr Newport, with the balance to two other prominent burgesses, James Boyse and John Hamond. There were no other imports of iron to the head port in that year. The water bailiffs however recorded 69½ tons ‘from the Spanyard’ or ‘from Degas’ charged to Mr Newport and Mr Boyse, and possibly a further twenty tons depending on interpretation of an ambiguity.[60] In other words only either half or three quarters of the actual load was declared to customs.[61] In contrast, Evan Jones study of imports of iron by the leading Bristol merchant John Smythe into the port of Bristol during 1542 and 1544 found that the tonnages of iron listed in the customs accounts corresponded closely to those listed in Smythe’s private ledger.[62] Jones concluded that ‘the goods listed in the customs accounts were the ones the ships were actually carrying and that the quantities in the customs accounts are reasonably accurate’.[63]
As well as revealing a substantial mid century illicit overseas trade, the later water bailiffs’ accounts provide evidence of a flourishing trade in iron from South Wales which was not recorded in the Exchequer accounts. During 1597/98 one of either the Lyant of Cardiff, or the Angell of Cardiff made a regular monthly run to Bridgwater with five to ten tons of iron each time. This was then transferred into Robert Demond’s lighter, and purchased by Alexander Hill who paid a charge for its passage under the town bridge.[64] The trade described in the water bailiffs’ accounts for 1597/98 totalled 162 tons, and far outstripped that in the Exchequer accounts, where only six tons were recorded.[65] This suggests that Welsh iron had largely replaced Spanish iron by the end of the century, and it is interesting to note that in 1589 the first instance of iron specifically identified as being Welsh was listed as an export to Ireland.[66] A rise in the production of Welsh iron would therefore seem to account for the decline in exports of iron from Bridgwater to Ireland in the second half of the century, since the likelihood is that these would have been shipped directly from Wales to Ireland rather than through Bridgwater. This is consistent with the supply side difficulties of obtaining supplies of Spanish iron in the later decades of the century, and also with the introduction of blast furnaces to Wales after 1560 with the resulting increase in production using Welsh ore.[67] Although lacking the high carbon content and strength of Spanish iron, this was nonetheless suitable for the manufacture of agricultural implements and everyday goods, such as those which would have been produced by the regional smiths appearing in the water bailiffs’ accounts. The use of multiple sources in this instance therefore supplies evidence of import substitution in an important industry which has not previously been recognised.
Woad
Woad imported from Toulouse and the Azores, was used to produce a blue dye for the cloth industry, and was one of the most expensively valued items in the customs accounts. Given its high value any evasion of duty would clearly have had a significantly adverse affect on customs revenue, and the water bailiffs’ accounts are again illuminating in this respect. The customs accounts recorded the Mary, under the mastership of Degas Delarew, arriving in March 1545 with fourteen half bales and six hundredweight of woad, which equates to one and a half tons.[68] This was entered against two merchants, John Newport and James Hay. The previous customs entry for woad was in January and the next was not to be until November, and no other merchants were shown to be shipping woad aboard the Mary on this occasion. The bailiffs’ recorded baring two tons, rather than one ton, to Mr Boys ‘from Degas’, and one ton to Mr Newport in this period.[69] The woad recorded by them was thus clearly from Degas’ ship, the Mary. This discrepancy of one and a half tons represents a declaration to customs of half of the actual cargo. Likewise on 28 August 1598 one of the town’s burgesses was charged by the water bailiffs for landing two tons of woad.[70] However, there was only one entry for woad in that year’s customs, which was for a coastwise shipment from Barnstaple on 29 August, and this was for half this amount.[71] Furthermore, Mr Godbeare appears in the same set of bailiffs’ accounts charged for landing three tons of woad in January 1598, an amount which was not declared in either the overseas or coastal customs accounts. In total for the year 1597/98 therefore five tons were landed at Bridgwater, against the one ton declared to customs. It appears therefore that the leading merchants and town officers routinely evaded paying full duty on their shipments of woad. On the basis of the evidence here it also appears that the level of this evasion increased as the century progressed.
Commercial Development
The trade recorded in the customs accounts had so diminished that in the last decades of the sixteenth century nil returns were entered in customs for several quarters, and in 1588 the customs clerk ended the accounts with the supplication ‘God send better’.[72] The situation was so dire that in 1596 the customer resigned claiming that there was insufficient trade to pay his fees, and Lord Burghley considered abolishing the post of customer at Bridgwater altogether when he learned that this officer had been paid nearly £25 more than he had collected in duty in 1594/95.[73] The decline in customs revenue at the head port was confirmed the same year by the mayor, Mr Salmon, and four burgesses who petitioned Lord Burghley to request a replacement for the post of searcher following the death of the incumbent. Their petition emphasised that ‘the trade of merchandise and the shipping of the town is for the most part decayed, having but one bark only’.[74] The post of searcher had no salary, as the holder was usually recompensed by the receipt of half of the value of any illicit goods he discovered, or more usually by the acceptance of bribes to avoid making any such discovery.[75] There was extensive collusion between local customs officers and a wealthy, ruling oligarchy at Bristol during this period, and given the involvement of Bridgwater’s mayor and burgesses in smuggling described above, an ulterior motive for their choice of searcher and for their emphasis on the low level of trade through the head port cannot therefore be ruled out.[76] Their testimony should not necessarily be taken at face value as a description of the underlying commercial reality at the port.
There was in any case one expanding area of commerce which occasionally handsomely compensated for the loss of regular trade and customs duties during the later decades of the sixteenth century. The armed seizure of marine cargoes was by no means a new phenomenon, and was one in which Somerset’s men had a long and ignoble history. In 1549 a Minehead man, Richard Cole, confessed to piracy, and around the same time Henry Moyle from Uphill was charged for seizing the cargo of a Scottish ship.[77] The distinction between those who engaged in the armed seizure of cargoes and those who undertook more normal mercantile methods was often not absolute. John Hille and John Capes were two Minehead merchants and shipowners who appear in the customs records trading regularly to Ireland, but in 1546 they were ordered by the Privy Council to make reparation for a Portuguese caravel and her cargo which they had seized. [78] Moreover, the crown’s attitude towards such actions was not always clear cut and depended in large part upon who had been attacked.[79] Given this background, it was therefore a small step for Somerset’s merchants to combine their normal trading activities with the capture of enemy merchant ships when the government extended the system of licensed raiding, or privateering, as part of the maritime response to war with Spain.[80] The capture of the right ship could be staggeringly rewarding. In 1586, for instance, the Jonah from Antwerp was brought into Bridgwater with a cargo of sugar valued at £1,105.[81] This one cargo, claimed by Bridgwater aldermen William and Henry Jones, and Henry Michell, was worth more than five times the entire declared trade for the port during that fiscal year. There was clearly a strong incentive for merchants such as Richard Godbeare, mayor in 1592, to seek prizes like the Conception of Vila do Conde, which was seized in 1588 by the Bridgwater ship the Lyon.[82] This was loaded with an exceptionally valuable cargo including eighteen tons of Brazilwood, and was altogether valued at £1,678. The complete customs records do not survive for this year, but for comparison the total of all declared overseas trade for 1583/84 was £1,656. Not all prizes were so valuable and at the other end of the scale in 1591 the Bridgwater ship, Diamond brought the Bonasperanto with a cargo of small goods valued at £50 into Bridgwater.[83] In the same year however, although not recorded in the customs accounts, the Bridgwater ship Mayflower captured a ship with a cargo of dyewoods, sugar, hides and pearls valued at over £2,000.[84] The customs clerk’s plea ‘God send better’ made in December 1588 at the end of a quarter in which no customable goods had entered or left the head port, must therefore be set in the context of the arrival in May that same year of the prize ship Raynebowe, with a cargo valued at £323, and in February of the Conception, described above, with probably the most valuable cargo ever to have entered the port.[85]
Whilst the decline in the trade of the Somerset ports during the century may not have been as desperate as Exchequer records and some contemporary accounts suggest therefore, there had nevertheless been a fundamental shift in the long established patterns of trade over the course of the century. Imports of fish, so long synonymous with the Irish communities at Minehead and Axwater, were increasingly sourced from further west in the far Atlantic. Imports of iron, salt and wine had been disrupted to varying degrees by the wars with Spain, and the corresponding export trades in agricultural products had been similarly affected. Above all, cloth exports, which had been the mainstay of Somerset’s maritime trade, had been reduced to a fraction of that pertaining at the opening of the century.
Somerset was not unique in this respect of course, and it has been argued that the commercial challenges of the later century were the spur which prompted English merchants to broaden their horizons, extending their trading voyages to the coasts of Africa and the Americas.[86] Unlike their Devonian and Bristolian counterparts, Somerset’s merchants did not venture as far as the Caribbean, Virginia or Guinea, but neither were they entirely parochial in their outlook. Frobisher’s 1578 expedition to northern Canada included the Bridgwater registered ship, Emmanuel, and in 1589 the Bridgwater ship Lyon returned from the Azores with a cargo of sugar and woad, freighted under the names of William and Richard Godbeare and Thomas Gybbons.[87] In 1598 The Advantage returned from Newfoundland with a substantial cargo of fish under the names of Richard Stradlinge, George Pawle and Philip Redibone.[88] All of these merchants were at the forefront of society and held the usual town offices, but none of the craft in which they were trading was large even by contemporary standards. The Emmanuel was described as a buss, indicating it was a type of fishing vessel, whilst the Advantage was only 25 tons, and the Lyon 40 tons.[89] In 1588 in response to a requisition order Bridgwater declared that it had no vessels over 50 tons, adding ‘our harbour when we were best traded never, or very seldom, yielded any shipping of any such burden’.[90] Although the town’s merchants had good reason for wishing to avoid having their ships requisitioned, their statement is borne out by the tonnages of vessels listed in the customs accounts, and by a survey in 1582 which listed the largest ship at 60 tons.[91] For comparison the Jesus of Northam in north Devon was 80 tons, and Bristol recorded ships of up to 350 tons.[92] This is significant as the development of more distant markets resulted in the building of larger ships which were better suited to trans-oceanic voyages, and as a consequence between 1572 and 1582 the number of English ships of over 100 tons approximately doubled.[93] These ships, such as the 100 ton Prudence commissioned by Richard Dodderidge of South Molton in Devon for the Guinea trade, required large sums of capital, both for their construction and for the subsequent financing of their voyages.[94] Somerset’s merchants do not seem to have lacked either the capital, or the entrepreneurial initiative, required to participate in this trend as evidenced by the passage of ships such as the Lyon to the Azores. What Somerset did lack, and what Devon had in abundance however, were the accessible, deep-water harbours which these larger ships required.
Although Bridgwater was Somerset’s principal maritime port, its fleet had never been particularly significant. Even in terms of trade to the head port itself, Bridgwater’s ships never freighted more than a quarter of the value of declared trade. Figure 3.5 illustrates that in many years ships from the smaller towns of Minehead and Wexford carried as much, and sometimes more, than those of Somerset’s main port.
Figure 3.4 Port of Bridgwater: percentage share of declared trade freighted by ships’ home port.
This can perhaps be explained by the more favourable maritime position of these towns, which have immediate access to the open sea, and perhaps therefore had a more extensive fleet. Bridgwater, in contrast to Minehead and Wexford, lies some ten miles from the coast along a narrow, winding waterway, navigable only at high tide. A survey in 1543 seems to support this as it listed four ships between 60 and 100 tons for the harbour at Minehead along with 77 seamen, but listed only thirteen mariners for Combwich/Bridgwater and concluded that ‘there is none other ship nor balinger belonging to Somersetshire’.[95]
Neither was Minehead in a position to take advantage of the change in circumstances occasioned by the shift to larger ships. Both the share of trade passing through Minehead, and the share of trade carried aboard its ships, suffered a sharp downturn from the 1560s onwards. In broad terms the head port of Bridgwater accounted for about two thirds of declared overseas trade by value, and Minehead one third until the middle of the century. There was then a sharp gain by Bridgwater which handled over 80 percent of declared trade in 1560/61, and over 90 percent in 1583/84, leaving Minehead with just five percent in 1597/98. This can partly be attributed to the loss of the town’s two principal sources of maritime trade, in cloth and Irish sourced fish, but Minehead also encountered problems with the maintenance of its harbour in the later century which restricted the size of ships able to use the port.[96] The largest vessel listed in a 1572 survey was 30 tons, and the customs do not record craft larger than 25 tons.[97] Despite the shelter afforded from westerly gales by the bulk of North Hill, Minehead remains in a much more exposed position than many ports along the Bristol Channel, and it did not again develop significant long distance trade until the construction of a new harbour and the development of new markets in the seventeenth century.[98]
The response of the merchant elite in the head port of Bridgwater to the changing economic circumstances which presented themselves was therefore neither to seek new markets, nor to develop new products in the manner of their north Devon counterparts. Rather they resorted to armed raiding and sought to collude with the customs officers in order to increase their margin.
Conclusion
Although the Exchequer records indicate that some areas of overseas trade declined for economic and political reasons, the water bailiffs’ accounts demonstrate that maritime trade continued and even increased in some essential commodities, as domestic supplies were substituted for scarce overseas resources. Thus imports of iron from Spain, which fell sharply during the 1580s and 90s, were initially offset and then exceeded by imports of iron from south Wales. By the end of the century the harbour at Bridgwater was importing more iron than ever before, although less than four percent of this was liable to Exchequer control. Likewise only approximately half of the imports of salt were liable to duty. It was not so much overall maritime trade therefore which had suffered a severe diminution in the later years of the century, but rather that portion of maritime trade which was declared to customs. Although recorded overseas trade had fallen off, this was compensated by an increase in coastal traffic, and in the enormous wealth generated from captured enemy vessels. Contrary to the analysis of Robert Dunning and others, the head port of Bridgwater does not appear to have been in decline at the end of the century, but along with its hinterland was enjoying a period of perhaps unprecedented prosperity.[99]
This interpretation has implications for the wider historiography as well, since it has shown that historians who rely solely on overseas customs accounts to understand the economic fortunes of a port risk gaining a substantially misleading impression. Even if allowance is made for smuggling, this source used in isolation can potentially still represent an incomplete and inadequate guide to overseas trade. Firstly, it has been shown that any assessment of overseas trade also needs to consider trade recorded in the coastal accounts which was initially routed through other domestic ports. Thus 31 tons of lead not the nineteen tons recorded in the overseas accounts was freighted overseas from the port in 1585/86. Similarly, eight tuns, not two tuns of wine arrived inward to the port in 1585/86. Secondly, and conversely, not all goods recorded in the overseas accounts were necessarily destined for the port itself, but may simply have been entered for customs there. This was seen to apply to cargoes of wine in 1597/98 when the David did not offload any of its cargo of 46½ tuns . This obviously has implications for using the overseas accounts to determine the level of trade to Bridgwater, but it also has implications for determining the level of trade at the port where the David was ultimately bound. The wine trade of the destination port would have been greater than is apparent from a reading of the customs accounts since the cargo was not recorded in the coastal accounts. This is a point which will be substantiated in Chapter Four in relation to the wine trade in the port of Gloucester. Thirdly, it was demonstrated that even the combined overseas and coastal Exchequer accounts still represent only a partial record of trade in basic commodities such as iron and salt which were fundamental to economic activity, since the larger part of these were not liable to customs control and recording.
The evidence from the port of Bridgwater also suggests that opportunities for smuggling were greater at smaller ports than at larger ports. The relatively small size of these communities allowed the local merchant elite considerable leverage in local affairs. Alternative or countervailing centres of power were fewer and weaker than in larger conurbations, and the opportunities for coercion or collusion with Crown customs officers were therefore greater at places such as Bridgwater than at Bristol. This was not lost on contemporaries as indicated by the observation made by John Wheeler in his defence of the Merchant Venturers,
the stragler shipping his Cloth and other Coomoditie in couert maner, hugger-mugger, and at obscure Portes, haue more aduanteage, and meanes to defraud her Maiestie of her dueties and rightes, then those which ship at London, and other great port Townes, either by false entryes, colouring of Straungers goods, and corrupting the Customer, and other Officers who, for the most part being needie persons in those small, and remote Portes of the Realme, are more readie to take rewardes, and closelier may doe it, then the Officers of the Customes at the port of London.[100]
This theme will be expanded in subsequent chapters but it is sufficient to note here that imports of iron in the 1540s were found to be declared at only between one half and three quarters of the actual lading, in contrast to Bristol where cargoes of iron have been found to be in line with the customs returns. Imports of woad were similarly found to be declared at only one third of the actual ladings in mid century, and by the end of the century this proportion had reduced to just one fifth. Both iron and woad were unloaded at the quayside in Bridgwater itself as part of the town’s normal commercial operations, and this suggests that the practice of smuggling was both more deeply embedded and endemic than in the port of Bristol, where smuggling was conducted in a clandestine manner, often offshore or under cover of darkness.[101] Furthermore the Bridgwater customs officer expressed fear of venturing to the creek of Axwater and the returns made from there must be considered as extremely unlikely to reflect the full extent of trade, and probably represent an even smaller proportion of the true volumes passing through the creek.
Finally, the findings relating to the Somerset ports add to our understanding of the trading nexus in an unexpected way. Bilateral trading relationships were uncovered between the port towns of Wexford and Bridgwater, and between Waterford and Bristol. Chapter Two charted a possible similar connection between Youghal and Ilfracombe, and between Barnstaple and La Rochelle.
This chapter has therefore established that study of the trade of smaller ports is not simply a reproduction on a smaller scale of work that has already been more than adequately undertaken for larger ports. The minor Somerset port towns were shown to have had their own dynamic, and the multi sourced approach adopted here has added a new and important dimension to understanding of maritime trade in this period.