The Maritime Trade of the Smaller Bristol Channel Ports in the Sixteenth Century
Introduction :: North Devon Ports :: Port of Bridgwater :: Port of Gloucester :: Port of Milford :: Conclusion :: Appendices :: Bibliography
Chapter Five: The Port of Cardiff
Wales did not become an integral part of the English state until the Acts of Union from 1535 to 1542. However the imposition of royal authority which these acts sought to impose was contested and negotiated over the ensuing years, rather than being readily and instantaneously accepted by those who were adversely affected by the change. In this context, so far as the operation of customs was concerned, a unitary system of national customs did not begin to be imposed until the 1560s, when rights to impose and collect duty on foreign trade were removed from the marcher lords who had previously held them. Since the Exchequer customs accounts are the primary source for understanding maritime trade in this era, the task of identifying patterns of trade through the Welsh ports of the Bristol Channel during the sixteenth century is therefore constrained by the lack of a comparable body of data to that of the English ports for much of the century; the earliest surviving Exchequer account for the port of Cardiff not being until 1579.[1] Furthermore, the evidence which these accounts do contain is inextricably linked with the advance of royal authority in Wales and the degree to which this was successfully imposed.
Prior to the 1560s national customs were not collected along
the coast of South Wales which fell under the jurisdiction of various marcher lords.
Until 1563 the collection of customs in the area covered by the port of Cardiff
fell under the separate jurisdictions of two lordships: the coast from Chepstow
to Newport, and from Neath to Burry, fell under the authority of the Earl of Worcester;
the intervening area from Newport to Neath fell under the authority of the Earl
of Pembroke.[2]
The officers appointed by these nobles, rather than officers appointed by the Crown,
were responsible for making cockets and issuing licenses.[3]
The lack of royal customs officers along
the coastline of Wales provided opportunities for the illegal export of
prohibited and restricted goods in the manner which has been described in
previous chapters. A mid century report noted that along the coast of Monmouth
and Glamorgan ‘goeth awaye mouche lether and tallowe to the shippes of Bristoll
and so fourthe over seas withoute searche or any controllment, for they receave
it in uppon Severne without licence or coquet’.[4]
The distinct arrangements in England and Wales also provided scope however for merchants to develop legal commercial strategies which took advantage of tax differentials between the jurisdictions. This was particularly evident in imports of wine which will be detailed more fully below, but it also applied to other products. A letter from the lord treasurer to secretary of state Burghley in 1561 detailed how,
all merchauntes haunting
Bristow for their trade mak ther charter parties & ther cokettes to
Chepstow and such oder places wher the quenes majestie hath no custom nor have
hadd of long tyme …. for thos portes be in thandes of my Lord of Pembrok and of
my Lord of Wursistour. And as long as those portes shall have this liberty the
quenes majeste shall have no custom of any thing ther And all thinges restryned
by statute or proclamacion wilbe carried to the said portes wher it shall not
be staied which is and wilbe a gret losse to the quenes grace.[5]
The mid century transition to a new system of customs administration in Wales may therefore have been prompted by a desire on the part of the Crown to stem losses which it was suffering from the collection of customs revenue in England due to the anomalous collection of customs in Wales. This would be consistent with other measures which the Crown introduced in mid century in an effort to raise the income which it received from the collection of overseas customs. [6] Increased penalties for the illegal export of corn, timber and livestock were introduced in England from 1554, and the rates at which customs were levied were approximately doubled in 1558.[7] More stringent controls on the coastwise movement of dutiable goods were introduced as already described, and the Act of Frauds was passed by the first Elizabethan parliament limiting the places at which overseas trade was allowed.[8] As well as helping to stem losses arising to English customs, the Crown may also have hoped to secure additional income by levying royal customs on Welsh trade, rather than allowing this to flow directly to the marcher lords.
The first sign of a direct interest in the administration of Welsh customs by the Crown occurred in 1545 when it appointed its own officer in the form of a searcher at the port of Cardiff.[9] Soon afterwards a report was commissioned which surveyed the whole coastline with a view to ascertaining the extent of evasion of Crown customs which resulted from the autonomous collection of duties in Wales.[10] From 1559 onwards the Crown moved to incorporate Welsh customs with English customs and to impose a uniform system of control and collection. To this end South Wales was divided into two customs ports with head ports at Cardiff and Milford. The port of Cardiff had jurisdiction of the coast from Chepstow in the east, to Worm’s Head at the tip of the Gower Peninsula in the west, and as such extended through the counties of Monmouth and Glamorgan. Cardiff had three member ports at Chepstow, Swansea and Neath. In 1563 the Crown moved to exert its control with the appointment of an independent customer to the port with responsibility for the collection of customs.[11] Customer John Leek’s appointment was not readily accepted however, and in 1564 he complained that he had been threatened, assaulted and imprisoned by three men including the justice of the peace for Glamorgan.[12] Moreover, these men were said to have encouraged others to ‘withstand’ the new customs and to have instructed the officers of the port of Swansea to refuse to accept them.[13] Leather, bell metal and other prohibited merchandise were said to pass freely from the port.[14] In 1565 the court of Exchequer ordered the Earl of Pembroke and his representatives to appear before the court to answer allegations made by Customer Leek ‘touching the clame that the queen’s majestie maketh to the subside of tonnage and pondage within the portes in Wales, whereof the said erle is Lord marcher’.[15] Leek continued to struggle to exert his authority until he himself was dismissed for gross corruption in 1571.[16] In 1567 the Exchequer ordered that the jurisdiction of the port of Cardiff should be made subordinate to the customs authority at Bristol.[17] The extent to which this was driven by political manoeuvring on the part of Bristol to retain control of trade, or of the Crown to secure customs receipts, is not clear cut, and in any case the measure proved ineffective.[18] Evidently the Crown had made further progress by 1573 however when a customs house was first recorded at Chepstow, and in 1578 four deputies were recorded at the port.[19] Nonetheless the Crown’s right to collect customs was still disputed in practice if not in law. In 1572 an Exchequer official sought to arrest two men in Chepstow for evading payment of duties on wine imported there. The Steward of Chepstow, who was a brother of the Earl of Worcester, lord marcher of the port, called the official ‘a false knave’, threatened to put him in the pillory with his ears nailed and denied the Queen’s authority in the matter.[20]
Although resistance to the customer became less overt following Leek’s dismissal from office in 1571, this does not mean that the post and its powers were any more readily accepted. In 1575/76 George Herbert was alleged to have ignored the Queen’s customs every time he freighted goods.[21] Herbert was a prominent Swansea merchant and owner of a 100 ton ship called the Green Dragon; he was also a member of the Herbert family which included the vice admiral for Glamorgan and the Earl of Worcester amongst its members.[22] The compliance or otherwise of a figure such as George Herbert with the new customs regime was clearly crucial to the success of the venture and his attitude may be taken as a litmus of this. Robinson, who has been the foremost historian in this field, has argued that Herbert ‘was not prepared to contest the Crown’s entitlement to customs duties at Swansea’. But he also described him elsewhere as a man who ‘flagrantly and persistently abused his authority in the areas of South Wales which came under his control’.[23] Whilst Herbert may not have made a formal protest about the new customs therefore, it is significant that neither can he be said to have complied with it.
A campaign of attrition against the customer appears to have continued in 1585 when customer Henry Morgan faced an inquisition based upon the testimony of informers concerning his relationship with his brothers, one of whom was described as a traitor, and the other as a priest, ‘lately come out of France and was a common seducer in matters of religion’.[24] Later still, the controller, John Millon, a man who it was alleged ‘coulde neither write nor reade’, was fined Ł251 and sentenced to appear twice in the pillory for ‘sondrie fowle and notorious Misdemeanors and offences against him founde in the Starrchamber’. [25] His replacement was ‘a mann trained in learninge’ called Edward Jurden, who was recommended to the post by the Earl of Worcester.[26] The authority of the customer was still being challenged at the start of the following century however, even by figures as powerful as the countess of Pembroke who ordered the imprisonment of Jurden over a dispute about a cargo of Barbary hides on which she refused to pay custom.[27]
The imposition of royal national customs was by no means instantaneous nor readily accepted therefore, and it is important to bear in mind that the returns made to the Exchequer were intimately linked to the encroachment of royal authority and opposition to it. E.A. Lewis considered that by 1580 ‘the assimilation of the general customs revenue system in Wales with that obtaining in England appears to have been tolerably complete’.[28] Instances of opposition such as those outlined here suggest that many found the imposition of national customs far from tolerable however, and that the assimilation was accordingly far from complete. There are good grounds therefore for supposing that the degree to which Exchequer records under-represent trade in the Welsh ports in this period was greater than was the case for English ports. In England the royal writ was established and accepted, even if it was sometimes, perhaps even routinely, circumvented to varying degrees. In Wales however, the establishment of royal authority in the matter of customs in the Welsh ports was not readily accepted, and cases such as that in 1572 concerning the steward of Chepstow imprisoning the Exchequer’s officer, or the refusal of the countess of Pembroke to pay duty on hides imported in the early seventeenth century, show that resistance was strong and persistent.
Despite this opposition, by 1573 the Crown had nevertheless advanced in its attempts to supersede the marcher lords’ authority, and a regular system for recording the payment of subsidy and tonnage was in place which was analogous to that in England. A uniform system of recording and documentation is not however the same thing as a uniform system of practice underlying such recording. The apparent similarity of the later century English and Welsh port books is seductive and gives the impression that they were recording the same things in the same manner. The argument made here however will be that the Welsh port books were in fact less comprehensive in their scope than their English equivalents, and that for a variety of reasons they do not reflect underlying flows of trade to the same extent as their English counterparts.
Wine
The amalgamation of Welsh and English customs had a particular impact on the port of Chepstow which lies adjacent to the English border and only a few miles across the water from Bristol. In the early decades of the century Chepstow had some of the characteristics of a tax haven and was used by merchants to evade payment of full duties on wine in England.[29] For example, in 1502, 1517 and 1526 Bristol merchants arranged for large shipments of Bordeaux wine to be delivered to Chepstow.[30] Such shipments were then broken down and transhipped into smaller vessels to Bristol in order to avoid paying prisage, the threshold for which was ten tuns, but which was not levied at all in Wales. [31] The wine trade of the port was therefore considerably larger than it would otherwise have been but for this tax differential. In 1503/4, 91 tuns were recorded inbound at Bristol from Chepstow, and in 1516/17, 123 tuns.[32] Confirmation that this trade was associated with the avoidance of duty is provided by the fact that the largest of these cargoes was nine and a half tuns and so fell just below the rate at which prisage would have been due. Such practice was clearly irritating to the English authorities and subsequently the deputy butler of Bridgwater, John White, levied the prise of two tuns of wine on a merchant called Thomas Pope, even though Pope was shipping wine in lighters from Chepstow below the volume at which such prise was due.[33] The legality of this was challenged by Pope and the case was pursued in various courts and between various parties even after the death of White.[34] Equally this practice was rewarding for the authorities in Chepstow so long as they enjoyed autonomy in the collection of customs duties as it attracted trade to their port which would otherwise have been conducted directly to England. That the authorities at Chepstow did not readily relinquish their stake in the wine trade when the customs were amalgamated is illustrated by the incident described above when in 1572 the Steward of Chepstow threatened a customs official who sought to arrest two men in Chepstow for evading payment of duties on wine imported there. The scale of the wine trade passing through the port of Chepstow was evidently still considerable through to the early 1570s. Testimony taken in 1572 records that William Webbe had been charged with levying a toll of one penny for every ton of merchandise unloaded at Chepstow quay, the funds from which were to be used for its repair. In a three year period between 1569 and 1572 he had recorded 449 tuns of wine. [35] Yet the Exchequer accounts recorded no imports of wine at all from 1573 until 1579, and in 1579/80 only 38Ľ tuns. Ivor Waters noting that no trade at all was recorded in the Chepstow port books from 1573 to 1579 suggested that local merchants under the protection of the Earl of Worcester may have simply refused to cooperate with the local customs officials during this period.[36] This does not seem improbable given the altercation described above between the earl’s brother and royal customs officials.
Whilst the port of Chepstow was preeminent amongst Welsh ports in its role as an entreport for the wine trade, it was not the only port operating in this way. The Bristol customs accounts show imports of fourteen and a half tuns from Cardiff in 1503/4, and 31˝ tuns in 1517/18. Later in the century the coastal accounts show wine arriving from Cardiff into Gloucester, Bridgwater and Bristol.[37] An indication that opposition to the new customs regime was also strong at Welsh ports other than Chepstow is provided in 1572 when the controller bought a suit against eight men including the portreeve of Neath, and a member of the leading local family of Herbert for wrongfully importing and refusing to pay duty on wine and other goods valued at over Ł1,300.[38]
The evidence from the few extant Exchequer accounts from 1579/80 onwards indicates that the port of Cardiff’s wine trade had shrunk to fraction of that of the earlier part of the century. In 1579/80 only 63 tuns was recorded for the whole port, and in 1594/95 only nine tuns into Swansea, Cardiff and Aberthaw. The 1599/1600 coastal accounts show only just under four tuns shipped outward from the port. The indications from this source therefore suggest that the English authorities had been largely successful in their attempts to curtail the routing of wine via Welsh ports. However there is some evidence to suggest that illicit trade continued to emanate from the Welsh ports during this period. As described in Chapter Three the Bridgwater water bailiffs’ accounts show many small shipments arriving into Bridgwater from Wales which do not appear in the corresponding customs accounts. In total sixteen shipments cannot be correlated with the customs records for 1597/98, of which three can be positively identified as coming from the port of Cardiff.[39] The fact that these were not entered in the coastal customs does not of itself necessarily imply that they were illegal as they could have been freighted under a letpass in the manner described in the previous chapter. However the indications are that in this instance these shipments were illegal. At this particular time wine which was shipped directly from overseas into Wales, although required to pay royal customs, did not fall due for an impost which applied only to imports into England.[40] If and when such wine was subsequently shipped from Wales to an English port it was however required to pay the impost (although not tonnage which had already been paid in Wales at the port of first landing). All shipments of wine from Wales into the English port of Bridgwater should therefore have paid the impost and should appear accordingly in the Exchequer accounts. Some entries in the Bridgwater coastal accounts for 1597/98 do indeed detail cargoes of wine from Wales with a note that tonnage had been paid in Wales but that impost was now due. But the three shipments referred to above are absent from the Exchequer accounts although recorded in the water bailiffs’ accounts. It appears therefore that even as late as 1597/98 merchants were continuing to take advantage of different rates of duty in the two ports by routing large ships into Cardiff and then breaking bulk and transhipping small cargoes illegally across the Channel so as take advantage of lower rates of duty. The coastal wine trade emanating from the port of Cardiff was therefore greater than that which is apparent from the Exchequer accounts.
In summary, the imposition of royal authority appears to have had a negative impact on overall levels of wine imports to the port of Cardiff, particularly into Chepstow, with a corresponding decrease in the amount of coastal traffic outbound from the port to England. It is likely however, that some outbound coastal traffic in wine continued but was not recorded in coastal customs.
Salt
Wine was the principal commodity which was shipped via Chepstow to English ports, but evidence from Bristol’s Exchequer accounts indicates that other continental imports such as salt, woad, fruit and oil were also being shipped to Bristol from Chepstow in the early part of the century, which had presumably arrived directly into Chepstow from overseas before being freighted to Bristol. [41] Harder evidence for a direct import trade to Chepstow is provided by a local customs account for the town in 1535/36 which recorded imports of substantial quantities of woad.[42]
The volumes of salt recorded inbound to Bristol from the Cardiff ports in the early century were not especially significant however, with only 38 tons for instance shipped from Chepstow to Bristol in 1503/4.[43] Further small shipments were recorded inbound at Bristol from Swansea, Cardiff and Chepstow in 1516/17.[44] The later Exchequer overseas accounts for the port of Cardiff show greater volumes which were imported from the French ports of La Rochelle, Le Conquet and Marennes, and from the Portuguese ports of Aveiro and Lisbon, and also via Jersey. The limited data available which is outlined in Table 5.1 suggests that salt imports may have declined at Cardiff in the same way as they were found to have done at Bridgwater.
5.1 Port of Cardiff : imports of salt (tons)[45]
|
Year |
Tons |
|
1579/80 |
132 |
|
1594/95 |
128 |
|
1595/96 |
48 |
|
1598/99 |
58 |
In contrast to the overseas accounts, the Cardiff costal
accounts record only two small shipments of salt: one in from Milford, and the
other out to Tewksbury.[46]
However as with other commodities considered in this chapter there is evidence
for a larger domestic trade which was taking place outside the scope of customs
control and which was not represented in the coastal customs accounts. As
previously described, from the 1560s onwards domestic production of salt
manufactured by boiling sea-water was encouraged by the Crown, and there is
evidence for at least one salt works in south Wales at Port Eynon on the Gower
peninsula.[47]
As outlined in Chapter Three, the Bridgwater water bailiffs’ accounts show significant discrepancies between the amount of salt which was unloaded at the port and the amount which was recorded in both the coastal and overseas customs accounts. The combined figures for imports of salt from the 1597/98 and 1599/1600 customs accounts amounted to 60 tons, but the water bailiffs recorded 224 tons.[48] The origin of shipments in the water bailiffs’ accounts is not generally given, and the salt recorded there could have come from a wide variety of places including down the Severn from brine producing regions. However, several shipments have appended comments such as ‘out of the bote of Cardiff’, or ‘from the bote of Newport’, or ‘out of the bark abartha’ (Aberthaw) which indicates a more immediate origin.[49] Of the 224 tons of salt landed by the Bridgwater water bailiffs in 1597/98 and 1599/1600 only ten tons can be positively identified as having been imported aboard south Welsh craft, compared to the remaining 214 tons for which no relevant information is given. The possibility nevertheless remains that the port of Cardiff may have been a net exporter rather than importer of this important commodity by the end of the century.
The lack of earlier customs accounts imposes an obvious
constraint on what can be known about trade earlier in the century. For
example, whilst a great deal was determined about the fish trade in the English
ports of the Bristol Channel, the fact that fish ceased to be recorded in the customs accounts between
1564 and 1591, and that none are found in the surviving customs accounts for
Cardiff after this date leaves very little evidence to work with. Information
from coastal customs accounts elsewhere in the Channel in this respect is also limited
with only one entry found in the accounts sampled.[50] The
only other piece of evidence for a trade in fish at the port is supplied in a
case in 1578 when three thousand fish were alleged to have been procured from
pirates.[51]
Consumption patterns in Cardiff cannot have been so very different from
elsewhere, and whilst we can assume that there was a trade in fish, the size of
this, and whether the port was a net importer or exporter must remain unknown.
Foodstuff
The hinterland of the port of Cardiff was famous to contemporaries for the fertility and abundance of its agriculture. John Leland journeying through the region in the 1530s wrote of ‘meetly good corn ground...and very good fruit for orchards’.[52] Rice Merrick writing in 1578 described the area as 'always renowned . . . for the fertility of the soil and the abundance of all things serving to the necessity or pleasure of man, as also for the temperature and wholesomeness of the air', and noted the ‘pleasant meadows and . . . pastures, the plains fruitful and apt for tillage, bearing abundance of all kinds of grain'.[53] Likewise Camden writing in the early seventeenth century described the soil as, ‘plaine, euen and fruitful, yeelding to the inhabitants good store of corne and cattell'.[54]
This abundance is reflected only to a limited extent in the recorded outbound maritime traffic from the port. Grain features prominently in these descriptions but the first recorded cargoes in the Cardiff accounts were not until the final year of the century when just under 69 weys of wheat, barley, oats and oatmeal left for Bristol and Gloucester. Of these 30 weys were exempt from duty as they were for provisioning the army in Ireland. Only fourteen of the 21 weys despatched to Gloucester were subsequently recorded inbound in the Gloucester port books, with three out of the eight ships recorded leaving Cardiff for Gloucester being absent from Gloucester’s records.[55] Sidrake Brooke, listed as a Cardiff brewer, was the merchant responsible for these missing shipments and it is possible that he had arranged to ship these cargoes elsewhere, possibly illegally overseas in the manner described in the previous chapter. The illicit trading of grain was within the remit of a 1584 commission of enquiry which heard testimony that the Jonas of Cardiff had freighted a cargo of wheat overseas, and that ‘certen corne’ was concealed about the port, and that a witness had ‘seene corne sold by Edward Vaughan of Landogh to John Harding his shipp’.[56] The illicit activities of the Welsh in this respect apparently extended beyond their own borders to the other side of the Bristol Channel as in 1585 the Bridgwater water bailiffs recorded a payment to Thomas Alexander, ‘to go to the pylle beyonde hybridge by nyght ......... too staye sartyng [certain] walshe men ladying in corne & spuy [spy] at hunspill a pon them’.[57]
It was butter however, rather than grain which was the most frequently recorded foodstuff in the Cardiff Exchequer accounts. The Cardiff coastal accounts show five vessels shipped in excess of 42 kilderkins coastwise to Bristol, Gloucester and Minehead during July and September 1586.[58] The Bridgwater accounts for 1585/86 show the import of 120 kilderkins from Cardiff, and similarly the Gloucester port books show 23 kilderkins inbound in 1575/76.[59] There are no overseas exports listed in the Exchequer records before early 1599 when 145 kilderkins of butter were shipped from Cardiff to La Rochelle and Le Croisic in Brittany.[60] Earlier shipments to these places are apparent from other sources however: in 1593 Roger Sydenham was noted to have shipped 70 kilderkins from Cardiff to La Rochelle as part of a licence granted to him; and a letter of the same year refers to a London merchant having shipped 300 kilderkins of butter from Cardiff, for La Rochelle or Bordeaux, on behalf of the French ambassador, for the King of France's use.[61] The trade therefore seems to have been fairly regular and relatively even.
In 1599/1600 however the coastal accounts show a substantial and sudden increase to 2,535 kilderkins shipped from the port. Although virtually all of these were despatched to Bristol, they were not intended for domestic consumption as 80 percent were noted as being free from custom as they were for provisioning the army in Ireland. Such a large increase in the volumes recorded leaving the port suggests three possible reasons: either there must have been an equally large increase in production; or that trade was switched from overland to marine transport; or that a hitherto unrecorded trade became temporarily apparent in the customs returns because of the requirement to note that the cargoes bound for Ireland were exempt from duty. There are ample indications to support the latter of these suppositions. In 1584 an Exchequer commission was established to enquire into customs abuses in Glamorgan which sought to establish, amongst other things, whether,
that there was loaden in the moneth of August was twelvemonthe, being the yere of or lorde 1583, from the backside of one Jenkyn thomas house, abouts 200 kilderkyns of butter of michaell Pepwells of Bristoll; wwhichch (sic) was laden into the Margaret of cardif.[62]
Testimony submitted to the enquiry included that of Robert Levell that,
Butter goeth daily to sea, and he hath caried diuerse tymes butter to Bristoll; and there hath landed within theis five yeares xx kilterkyns of butter on the backe there in the boate of John tanner the younger, called the Trinitie, and now the boate of Hugh Richard of Penarth.[63]
Or of John Rawling who,
Caried with one michell thomas twentie kilterkyns of butter to the kaye of cardif, to the vse of will'm wickham of Bristoll.[64]
The defence of the customs officer to these charges is
interesting,
Thomas Moate, of
cardif, searcher. Knoweth no butter, leather, corne or tallowe convaied awaie
to the sea, saving butter, which he suffred to passe to Bristoll knowing hit to
be but for their provision; & all other wares to be forfeited he seased on,
and hath accompted for the same.[65]
Moate did not deny that the traffic in butter took place, only that it was illegal. His defence centred on the fact that goods were only subject to customs duty if they were traded ‘by way of merchandise’, and that goods intended for ‘provision’ were exempt. Provision shipments were distinct from those travelling under a letpass. As was demonstrated in the previous chapter a letpass was a written document which demonstrated that the relevant cargo was exempt from the requirement to lodge a bond and obtain a coastal certificate because customs had already been paid. Provision shipments did not require any document and are therefore generally invisible to historians. ‘Provision’ covered goods loaded aboard ship for consumption by the crew during the voyage, but also covered small amounts of goods which the mariners wished to trade on their own account. The definition and exemption could be drawn quite widely however. For instance if a ships’ crew called into a port and sold part of their cargo in order to secure provisions for themselves then the cargo sold was not liable for duty.[66] ‘Provision’ also covered goods which were imported but which were not intended for resale, such as those destined for great households which were imported directly for their own use; and as has already been described, also covered shipments made to supply the army stationed in Ireland.[67] Moate seems here to have extended the meaning of ‘provision’ to cover domestic trade which was intended for domestic consumption, as distinct from shipments made to another domestic port which were then due for transport overseas. The significance of this is that butter was a prohibited ware which was subject to strict regulation in English ports, but seems to have been treated more leniently by the Cardiff customs officers. Although this is the single piece of evidence to support this supposition, it is nevertheless consistent with patterns of the trade in salt described above, and in iron and coal from the port which will be considered further below. Goods which were subject to Exchequer control and which were recorded in the coastal customs accounts in English ports were not always treated in the same way in Welsh ports where they appear to have frequently been freighted under letpass or provision. Despite their common appearance, the English and Welsh coastal accounts do not seem to have been drawn up on the same basis and are not necessarily analogous.
It seems likely that the full extent of the trade in iron from the port of Cardiff was similarly not fully represented in the Exchequer records, both for legitimate and illegitimate reasons.
The development of blast furnaces in Wales led to increased production of iron from 1564 onwards, and substantial quantities were evidently being produced by 1568 when Sir Henry Sidney freighted 186 tons from Glamorgan to Dublin.[68] In the same year the Taff furnace near Cardiff was reported to be producing 205 tons annually, and further evidence for the scale of production is found in a case concerning the preservation of woodland near an iron works at Pontymoile north of Newport, in which it was said that 150 tons of iron had been produced during 1587/88.[69] Output at this plant had previously been recorded as between 110 and 200 tons in 1582/83.[70] These were just two of ten furnaces operating in the sixteenth century in Glamorgan and Monmouthshire.[71] Not all of this production would necessarily have been transported by sea, and some of it no doubt would have been used locally. It does seem likely however, that the major part of output would have been freighted aboard ships from the nearby ports for traffic to English markets where demand was greater. This was the most cost effective means of bulk transport, and was the favoured method of moving iron which was brittle and susceptible to damage.[72]
Compared to the scale of production indicated here, outbound
shipments of iron recorded in the customs accounts were very limited, amounting
to slightly over eighteen tons spread over four shipments in the eleven relevant
customs accounts covering the period from 1579 to 1600 which were sampled.[73]
Examination of the coastal accounts for ports elsewhere in the Bristol Channel
reveals a slightly more extensive trade: for instance Gloucester recorded
receipt of eighteen tons of ‘Welsh iron’ during 1575/76 coming in from Cardiff
and Newport, and a further 30 tons in the first six months of the following
year; likewise the Bridgwater coastal account for 1599/1600 recorded 21 tons of
‘Welsh iron’ inbound from Cardiff. Examination of the Bridgwater water bailiffs’
accounts however shows that shipments of iron considerably in excess of this
were arriving from the Welsh coast: in 1597/98 the water bailiffs charged for
the landing of 162 tons of iron compared to the six tons in the customs
accounts; in 1599/1600 they charged for landing 88˝ tons compared to the 21
inbound in the customs accounts.[74]
The provenance of this iron is
occasionally made explicit such as in 1579 when a charge was made to ‘a
Welshman for landing of iiii ton of iron’; there was a similar entry made in
1591.[75]
The 1591 account also detailed money owing for the handling of ’10 tons of iron
which came from Cardiff to the keye’.[76]
The 1597/98 account is more detailed and shows that one of either the Lyant of Cardiff or the Angell of Cardiff made a regularly
monthly run into Bridgwater with five to ten tons of iron each time.[77]
Shipments of iron from the port of Cardiff to Bridgwater appear to have been as
much as twenty-seven times greater by the end of the century than is apparent
from the Bridgwater Exchequer records. In other words it appears that iron
shipments from the port were also being exempted from entry into the coastal
accounts either under the exemption of provision, or because they were
travelling under a letpass.
Bridgwater is not the only port likely to have been receiving shipments of Welsh iron in this way. It was suggested in Chapter Four that changes in recording may account for the absence of Welsh iron apparent in the later Gloucester port books compared to those compiled before 1583. Similarly, although there is no evidence in the Cardiff port books for any shipments of iron from Wales to Bristol, there were nevertheless a number of legal disputes which indicate that there was traffic in this direction. A Glamorgan debtor borrowed funds from Bristol merchants to establish an iron works, the repayment of which was contracted to be made in iron.[78] Similarly a Bristol merchant sued for the loss consequent on the non-delivery of iron manufactured in Monmouth which had been prevented from crossing the Bristol Channel because of supposedly adverse weather.[79] Whilst these cases concern contracts which were not honoured, other testimony records iron shipped to Bristol from 1578, and regular monthly shipments there from 1589 onwards.[80] The overall size of this trade must remain unknown, but it is pertinent to note that none at all was recorded in the surviving Welsh customs accounts, and only eight tons in the Bristol coastal accounts examined.[81] The observation was made in Chapter Two that imports of overseas iron to Bristol fell by 94 percent over the course of the century, and in Chapter Four that production from the Forest of Dean did not escalate significantly until the seventeenth century as blast furnaces were established there later than in south Wales. The implication therefore is that the market for iron in Bristol, whilst being partially met by Spanish imports routed through Barnstaple as described in Chapter Two, was largely being supplied by domestic Welsh production in the later decades of the century.
As well as these legitimate domestic flows of trade which were not recorded in the Exchequer accounts, there is also evidence to suggest that there were illegitimate overseas shipments of iron production. The crown certainly had concerns about the illegitimate export of ordnance which were expressed in a Privy Council order of 1602,
That all Masters of Iron ffurnaces (that
Iron Ordnaunce maie be caste) maie before some Justices of the Peace in those
contries enter into bonde not to suffer any Ordnaunce to be cast at their
ffurnaces. And that especiall care be had to put downe Edmond Mathewes esquier
for casting any Ordnaunce at his ffurnace neere Cardiff in Wales because from
that place very easilie they may be caried into Spayne. And if a due accompte
maie be taken for ve or vj yeares laste past, all or the moste parte of
Thordnaunce which he hath made with in that tyme shall be fownde
to haue ben stolne beyonde Seaes, and the officers of that Porte are very poore
men, and such as dare not displease him. And therefore, for the respects
aforesaid, that place very vnfitt to be permitted for the casting of Ordnaunce.[82]
Mathews had also been accused of this evasion in 1574.[83] The Exchequer accounts do nonetheless contain three references to the legal shipping of ordnance: the 1599/1600 coastal accounts have 48 tons of ‘iron ordninances called sakers and mynions’ being despatched to London; and a further two shipments of sakers, minions and carriages for minions being sent to both London and Bristol.[84]
Coal
Coal became an increasingly important source of fuel as the sixteenth century progressed and as timber supplies diminished.[85] As well as being used for domestic heating, coal was increasingly required by an expanding range of industrial processes including smelting, iron-working, lime-burning, soap-boiling, salt-distillation, brewing, and in the manufacture of glass, bricks and pottery.[86] The coal fields in the hinterland of the port of Cardiff, particularly in the area around Swansea and Neath, were well placed to meet this demand as they lay close to the sea and therefore readily accessible transport. Moreover the type of coal mined in the region was of high quality and burned readily in contrast to coal found further to the west in the port of Milford.[87] The trade of the ports of Swansea and Neath was consequently dominated by the export of coal as summarised in Table 5.2.
5.2 Port of Cardiff: exports of coal (tons) [88]
|
Newport |
Barry |
Cardiff |
Neath |
Aberthaw |
Swansea |
|
|
1579/80 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
268 |
0 |
636 |
|
1585 quarter 1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
304 |
|
1587 quarter 1 |
- |
- |
- |
0 |
0 |
202 |
|
1587/88 quarter 2 & 3 |
- |
- |
- |
52 |
0 |
556 |
|
1588 quarter 4 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
536 |
|
1594/95 |
24 |
56 |
200 |
92 |
40 |
2,524 |
|
1599/00 (coastal) |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1,752 |
0 |
2,388 |
Although data for full years does not always survive, a like-for-like comparison can be made between 1579/80 and 1594/95 which shows an approximately threefold increase in overseas exports. There is a noticeable upward trend in exports from Swansea, whilst the area around Cardiff can be seen to be a later entrant to this market. The greater number of ports featured in 1594/95 may be a reflection of a greater exactitude in the recording of the actual place of lading.
Unfortunately the overseas accounts do not give a destination for over half of these tonnages, but a strong and definite connection is apparent with the Channel Islands and northern French ports which comprise the destination for virtually all of the remaining volume shipped. The trade was characterised by frequent and small shipments with the average being twelve weys, and the largest 36 weys. This was freighted aboard ships from a wide range of over 40 different ports, but English and Welsh ships accounted for only a fifth of the volumes shipped. Notable amongst the domestic carriers were ships from Cornwall, which accounted for nearly a third of the domestic carriers’ market share. The profile of this commerce was that of a calling trade where many small ships from diverse locations arrived specifically to load with this one cargo. The limited nature of reciprocal trade is illustrated by the fact that 286 ships were recorded outbound in the accounts sampled, but only 74 were recorded inbound. Confirmation that ships arrived carrying ballast is provided by a series of ordinances issued by the town authorities at Swansea against the dumping of stones in the port roadway.[89]
The figures from the coastal accounts for 1599/1600 show that 1,752 tons shipped from Neath and 2,388 tons from Swansea. Given that the comparable figures for overseas shipments in 1594/95 were 92 tons from Neath and 2,524 tons from Swansea this would seem to suggest that the trade of Neath was much more domestically focussed than that of Cardiff. However, this was not necessarily the case as some overseas destinations began to be recorded in the coastal accounts in the last years of the century.
Destinations are not given in the coastal account for this domestic trade, but analysis of the ‘home’ ports of the vessels is instructive. Table 5.3 shows little indication that these domestic coastal shipments were bound for more immediate destinations within the Bristol Channel: there were no ships recorded from Bridgwater, Gloucester or Bristol for instance. Whilst there is no hard evidence for the domestic destinations of the coal shipped from Swansea and Neath, the apparent focus of the major part of this trade outside the Bristol Channel is striking and seems odd during a period when Welsh coal production was increasing and English domestic consumption was also increasing markedly.[90] Moreover the coastal accounts for the other Bristol Channel ports sampled record very few instances of the arrival of coal: Bridgwater was the only port listed receiving coal with one shipment from Bristol in 1561/62, one from Cardiff in 1585/86 and a further three from Cardiff in 1599/1600.[91] The obvious explanation for this disparity would be that Bristol, Gloucester and Bridgwater were supplied with coal from the nearby, inland, English coalfields. It is no surprise that Table 5.3 shows coal being exported principally aboard ships from regions which had no nearby coalfields, and not in those which did.
Table 5.3 Home port of vessels shipping coal from Neath
and Swansea 1599/1600 (volume % share of
trade).
|
Region |
Ports |
% Share of Trade |
|
Channel Islands |
Jersey, Guernsey |
20 |
|
Cornwall |
Falmouth, Fowy, Looe, Helford, Padstow, Penzance,
Plymouth |
17 |
|
South Devon |
Dartmouth,Topsham, Salcombe |
26 |
|
North Devon |
Barnstaple, Bideford, Braunton, Combe (Martin),
Lynton, Northam. |
14 |
|
Wales |
Cardiff, Mumbles |
7 |
|
Other within Bristol Channel |
Minehead,Taunton, Stonehouse |
4 |
|
Unknown and other destinations ex Bristol Channel |
|
12 |
However, the coastal accounts are not the only surviving
documents which record this trade, and the local port records for Bridgwater
show that coal was shipped to Bridgwater from South Wales even though this was
not recorded in the coastal Exchequer accounts. In 1505/6, 128 tons were
recorded against the combined bearing and measuring account by the Bridgwater
water bailiffs, and in 1529/30, 76 tons.[92] The 1540/41 accounts separate these two
categories which total 257 tons.[93]
The 1597/98 accounts record neither
baring nor measuring as charges but list coal under ‘landing’ which accounts
for 350 tons, or approximately three
times the tonnage compared to that at the beginning of the century. Figure 5.1
illustrates that coal imports recorded in the coastal accounts represent a
fraction of the actual trade with just one ton recorded inbound in 1561/62,
eight tons in the half year accounts for 1585/86, none at all in 1597/98, and 12
tons in 1599/1600. The provenance of the coal is indicated by its carriage in
ships listed principally from Newport and Aberthaw. It appears that coal was also therefore being
shipped under provision or letpass by the later century, and was largely
excluded from coastal customs control and recording. Again therefore the
coastal accounts fail to record more than a fraction of this important trade.
Indeed given that the vast majority of coal was clearly transported
domestically under letpass or provision, the anomalous coal shipments appear to
have been those which were declared rather than those which were not recorded
in customs.
It is not clear how extensive any similar trade in coal which was not described in the coastal accounts may have been in the wider Bristol Channel, particularly to the large market of Bristol itself. On the one hand there are reasons for supposing that it must have been very small, and perhaps even insignificant. Bristol, Gloucester and places upstream of Gloucester were located more immediately adjacent to coalfields than was the case for Bridgwater, and demand was most likely fully met using local supplies. Indeed Bristol was said to have coal mines only four miles from the city walls in 1566.[94] It is estimated that the Somerset coalfields were yielding 10,000 tons annually by mid century, and that Bristol had a surplus of coal is strongly suggested by overseas exports from the port listed throughout the century which were as high as 429 tons in 1594/95.[95] Likewise coastal shipments from Bristol of 38 tons were recorded bound for south Devon in 1576.[96]
On the other hand Bridgwater itself exported 70 tons to La Rochelle and Oleron in 1584, so exports alone do not rule out the possibility that local production was supplemented by supplies from south Wales. Furthermore south Welsh coal may have been cheaper at Bristol than that mined in Somerset since according to C.G.A. Clay ‘even a three mile journey by road could add as much as 60 percent to the selling price of coal, so that production for distant markets could only be undertaken by collieries with immediate access to navigable water’.[97] John Hatcher has also calculated that even as little as a six mile land journey could double the pithead price of coal.[98] Historians of the Somerset coalfields also believe that the majority of production was used within a twenty mile radius of the mines during this period reaching no further than Wells, Glastonbury and Bath.[99] By contrast coal was mined in the immediate environs of Swansea and Newport within easy reach of the port, and merchants may therefore have been able to benefit from the cost advantage which water transport enjoyed over land transport for heavy goods.[100]
The evidence is therefore evenly balanced, but in any case the relationship need not have been exclusive. It seems more likely that local supplies were supplemented with supplies from South Wales to some extent, as well as with those from Shropshire travelling down the Severn.[101] Local demand for coal was high and increasing, and local mines alone may have been insufficient to meet this. Furthermore, demand for certain types of Welsh coal may have been driven by factors other than price. Coal is a generic term and different types have different uses. Anthracitic ‘stone coal’ was particularly suitable for domestic use for instance, but bitumous ‘smith’s coal’ was more suitable for a range of industrial processes.[102] In 1570 the corporation of Bristol ordered supplies of stone coal to augment local supplies, and in 1615 it was reported that poorer households burned stone coal which came from Kingswood on the outskirts of the city.[103] But coal mined in the east of Wales, particularly around Newport was bitumous and more likely to be employed in the city’s burgeoning industries therefore. On balance therefore it does seem as though Bristol would have received supplies of coal from the south Welsh coal fields in the same manner as Bridgwater. Although there is no equivalent of the Bridgwater water bailiffs’ accounts for the port of Bristol which can corroborate the extent of any trade which was not recorded in the Exchequer coastal accounts, there are nevertheless good grounds for supposing that this did take place at least to some extent.
An explanation as to why some coal was recorded in the coastal customs accounts and some not in the way indicated in figure 5.1, may have been connected with the destination of the outbound shipment, or perhaps the type of craft employed. A 1636 Exchequer commission of enquiry recorded that coal was being shipped to Bridgwater without port bonds having been lodged, in trows which lacked masts, sails or tackling.[104] Even the most committed smuggler was unlikely to have attempted the passage overseas in such a vessel, and so the customs officers may have simply allowed cargoes aboard these vessels to proceed under a let pass or provision exemption. Westbound cargoes by contrast, aboard more substantial and seaworthy ships were perhaps considered more likely to be subsequently exported, and so were required to lodge a bond and be issued with a certificate. This would explain the preponderance of Bristol Channel ships with a north Devon home port in Table 5.3 almost to the exclusion of ships from all other ports in the Bristol Channel. It would also offer an explanation for the high proportion of coal listed for Cornish and south Devon ports.
There were good grounds for supposing that coal destined for
more westerly ports might be bound either directly or indirectly overseas. A number of entries in the Swansea and Neath
returns for ships from Looe, Salcombe, Padstow and Topsham have a margin note
that their bond has been forfeited because no certificate has been returned.[105]
In other words the merchants concerned were unable to supply certification that
the coal had reached the domestic port to which it was ostensibly bound. The
financial incentive to do this may have been a new imposition on overseas
exports of coal which was described as so onerous ‘that the custome was neere
as much as the price of the coale'.[106]
Since domestic coastwise shipments were not subject to this impost, this may also explain why Jersey and Guernsey began to be recorded in the domestic coastal account from 1599/00, whereas they had previously appeared in the overseas accounts.[107] This switch in recording has implications for comparisons between domestic and overseas trade, since the fall in overseas exports is not as great as the overseas port books indicate, nor was the domestic trade recorded by the Exchequer as buoyant as appears in the coastal account. W.S.K. Thomas for example was mistaken in identifying a sharp drop in coal exports from Swansea between 1559 and 1602. [108] This also implies that although no destinations were given for coastal shipments from Neath in 1599/1600, its trade was not necessarily more domestically focussed in the way that Table 5.2 seemed to indicate. The overlap between the overseas accounts and the coastal accounts was therefore considerable, and the distinction between them is not as clear cut as the separate administrative documents would suggest. A more accurate figure for overseas exports in 1599/1600 would probably need to include most, if not all, of the shipments recorded in the coastal account.
By the end of the century therefore, neither the overseas nor the coastal customs accounts fully or accurately represent the trade in the main commodity associated with the port, and which was to become so important to the development of the Welsh economy. In contrast to earlier years, the overseas account had ceased to include shipments to the important Channel Island markets; whilst the coastal accounts recorded only a fraction of the domestic trade which was conducted with England.
Leather
Tanning and leather-working were preeminent economic activities in the towns of Cardiff, and especially Swansea where apprenticeships to glove makers and shoemakers far exceeded those of other trades, and the town church had a chapel endowed by the guild of glovers.[109] The requirements of these trades may explain the import of fifteen dickers of tanned leather and nineteen and a half dozen calf skins from Bristol to Cardiff in 1576; and of over 41 dickers of leather to Cardiff in 1599/1600 from Bristol. Outbound shipments however were more frequent and were regularly featured to various destinations within the Bristol Channel: a small quantity of leather was shipped from Cardiff to Bridgwater in 1561; thirteen dickers were shipped from Swansea to Ilfracombe in 1569/70; 24 from Cardiff to Bristol in 1576; 27 dickers from Cardiff to Bridgwater in 1585/86; and nine dickers to Bristol in July 1586. However, neither shoes nor gloves were listed as separate items in the customs accounts for this or any other port studied, and the importance of the leather industry to the local economy is therefore perhaps not fully reflected in the port books. Whilst the Exchequer accounts provide a guide to the basic primary industry they are arguably a poor guide to the value-added secondary sector in this instance.
The quantities listed in the customs accounts are dwarfed however by the amounts which it was alleged were being smuggled away to Spain. In the early 1590s the High Constable of the hundred of Swansea was charged with conniving with a party who had laded a ship with merchandise which included 200 dickers of leather which they intended to secretly transport to Spain. The charge against the constable was that after he had arrested the merchants involved on the instruction of the justice of the peace, he had deliberately allowed them to escape and sail away.[110]
Cloth
Declared exports of cloth from the port were not great. Of the seven outbound shipments of cloth recorded in the accounts sampled, only two included locally produced Welsh frieze – a type of coarse woollen cloth. The remainder freighted Bridgwaters but the total of these was only equivalent to fifteen broadcloths. Evidence for the paucity of the local cloth industry is also found in the complete absence of any imports of soap, alum or dyestuffs which were required for the finishing stages of production. These findings are commensurate with the decline in demand for heavy cloths during this period noted elsewhere. The low volumes of cloth exports from the port are also consistent with the increasing market share of London merchants; in 1581 Lord Burghley noted,
and as it is trew that manny wastarn touns
ar decayed as bristoll and such lyke so it is not to be forgotten whyther
london hath not engrossed all ther trades not so muc for wynes but even for the
welsh frezees that come over the severn not farr from Bristow.[111]
Having said this, the local cloth trade had not completely expired as signified by an Exchequer case of 1594/95 in which an extended group of merchants, was charged with exporting a large quantity of woollen goods which had not been inspected and sealed as required by statute. The extent of this traffic can be seen from the long list of defendants which includes seven merchants from Bristol, four from Usk, as well as others from Caerleon and elsewhere. The scale of it is evident from the charge that they had forcibly retrieved 500 pieces of cloth which had been impounded by the customs officer.[112] The indications from this single piece of evidence therefore is that a similar situation may have pertained in the port of Cardiff to that which was identified in the north Devon ports where the majority of cloth exports were found to have been shipped illegally without declaration.
The destination of the outbound cargoes of cloth recorded in the customs accounts reflected the same close links exhibited in its coal trade with particular French and Channel Island ports: from Swansea to Brittany and Jersey; and from Cardiff, Barry and Newport to La Rochelle.
Further evidence of the geographical segmentation of markets is provided in a petition from Minehead seeking Crown aid for the restoration of its town quay which listed,
daylly
passage from the partys of the contrie of Glamorgan in walles to your sayd
pyer by myan of whyche passage the fayrs and markettes of your cowntry
forsayd hath byn isschyd with no small nomber of cattel
scheep wooll yarne clothe butter stone cooles oystars saman and other sundry
kinds of fysche and flesch.. [113]
Doubtless there was a degree of embellishment here, but it is interesting to note the passage of livestock. Corroboration of this is provided by a list of weir duties or charges for use of the harbour at Minehead drawn up in 1594-5, but said to have been in place ‘tyme out of mynde’, which includes charges for ‘bote laden of cattle’ and ‘xx sheep’, suggesting that the quantities must have been significant.[114] The Taff in Glamorgan was said to be abundant in salmon, but oysters may have been sourced from further west in the port of Milford. [115] This list is also interesting as it specifies a lower rate of duty for ‘every bote of Aberthar’ (Aberthaw) compared to other ships. Dr. Phaer had described Aberthaw as ‘a drie haven for small vesselles and daily passage to Mynet and Donster’, and John Leland had similarly noted that the river Thaw afforded ‘the next passage to Minheved’. [116] The close connection between the two regions is borne out by the coastal accounts for Minehead for 1550 and for 1561/62 which list ten out of fourteen ships outbound sailing to the port of Cardiff, with three of these being for Aberthaw. There was no reciprocal traffic recorded from the Cardiff ports however, presumably as it involved freight such as that described above which was not liable for coastal customs certification.
Merchants and Customs
Unlike in the ports of Barnstaple, Bridgwater, Bristol, and to a lesser extent Gloucester, there was no connection apparent between the merchants listed in the Exchequer accounts and the local civic or merchant elite. The merchants listed in the Cardiff customs accounts were generally minor figures, often the masters of the vessels listed, and rarely entered for substantial amounts. In stark contrast to their English counterparts, none of the merchants listed were found to have held civic office in Cardiff during this period, nor had any built up a commanding position in any particular branch of trade. The largest market share of any merchant in the coal trade, which was the principal export commodity from the port, was only two and a half percent. There were no figures for instance of the commercial magnitude of John Newport, sometime mayor of Bridgwater, or Gloucester alderman and grain merchant Luke Garnons, or Edward Barston, who attained the office of deputy customer at Gloucester, or Richard Dodderidge, leading merchant and mayor of Barnstaple.
The dispute between Gloucester and Bristol over the establishment of the Exchequer port authority of Gloucester shows that the civic elites of these places were extremely concerned to ensure that their local customs officers fell under their sphere of influence. Gloucester’s dismay when Edward Barston, a rival Tewksbury merchant, was appointed deputy customer was evident in subsequent suits that the town bought against him. Likewise there was extensive collusion between local customs officers and a wealthy, ruling oligarchy at Bristol during this period.[117] Similarly, at Bridgwater the town’s mayor and four burgesses petitioned Lord Burghley in 1595 to secure their preferred searcher in the port.[118] In contrast some key customs officers in the port of Cardiff operated without the support of the commanding echelons of local society, and on the fringes of the commercial world which they were policing. John Leek was from London with no local connections, as was John Middleton, the deputy at Swansea in 1565, and as was John Erely, the deputy at Cardiff in 1569.[119] Little is known about the background of subsequent customs officers in the port, but the rapid turnover in officeholders, the dismissal of John Million, and the imprisonment of Controller Edward Jurden indicate that they often lacked local support and occasionally incurred the enmity of important sections of local society.[120] By implication therefore the control which they were able to exercise in the performance of their duties must have been severely constrained.
Although the legal challenge to the customs officers’ authority had by and large subsided by 1580, de facto resistance persisted. Much of this opposition focussed around the powerful local family of Herbert. As described above Customer Morgan had bought a case against George Herbert in 1573 for the illegal importation of goods into various creeks and ports within his jurisdiction. In 1578 Nicholas Herbert, Sherriff of Glamorgan, was fined for receiving pirates’ goods, and William Herbert was found to be a relative of the notorious pirate John Callis, ‘whom he hath favore apparentd and lodged and vsed ofte his company’.[121] Elements of the Herbert family had good reason to resent royal authority as in 1569/70 the Crown had sought to recover debts off Nicholas’ grandfather, Sir George Herbert of Swansea, and in 1585 the Exchequer moved to recover lands from his father Sir William Herbert.[122] Members of the Herbert family appear in the port books only in 1579/80 when they imported wine, sugar, salt and Spanish iron, and exported lead, cloth and coal. They are notable however for their total absence from subsequent port books. Given their close association with Swansea, the absence of any trade associated with them from this port is especially striking. Indeed the fact that the Swansea and Neath port books are dominated by the export of coal almost to the exclusion of all else gives the impression that only minor traders from outside the area were subject to customs. The allegation that George Herbert ignored royal customs every time he shipped goods has already been noted and perhaps explains the lack of any major merchants in the Cardiff customs accounts, and the predominance of what were essentially small fry on whom it was easy to levy duty.
The possibility that major flows of trade were escaping the Exchequer records is given added weight by a consideration of the size of ships recorded in customs compared to other evidence. The smallest vessel ‘of’ the port of Cardiff listed in the port books sampled was the five ton Peter, and the largest was the 70 Charity of Chepstow which was entered only once.[123] The average size was 31 tons and these ships were therefore relatively small. There were however larger ships associated with the port, although none of these appear in the surviving Exchequer records. A 1577 survey listed Newport with two ships of over 100 tons, out of only three in the whole of Wales.[124] Additionally Newport was recorded as having six ships which were substantial, but below 100 tons, known as topmen. Swansea was listed for a further six topmen, Cardiff for two, and Chepstow for three. The port therefore had a total of seventeen topmen which represents a substantial fleet when compared to the eight recorded at the much larger port of Bristol.
Similarly the port books indicate that the orbit of the legitimate and declared trade of the ports’ ships was fairly circumscribed, with only one ship found to have ventured further than the northern coast of France.[125] Even a small port such as Bridgwater was found to have conducted a regular trade aboard its ships to northern Spain and the Azores. The scope of illegitimate activities conducted through the port was apparently much wider however, and reportedly involved the export of leather to Spain as described above, voyages to the Canaries, and the capture of ships off Portugal and even as far away as Newfoundland.[126]
Piracy
Not only does resistance to the payment of royal customs appear to have been stronger in Wales than it was in England, the level of lawlessness in the port was also apparently greater as well. Piracy was endemic in the period and many merchant ships were heavily armed against such eventuality. The Green Dragon for instance was bequeathed by George Herbert with ‘all her ffurnyture and tackynge and ordinannce shott and powdr armes and munition'.[127] Such armaments could also be used offensively of course, and the port of Cardiff was notorious as a base for pirates. In one year alone John Callice, an infamous pirate who was born at Tintern, brought a captured Spanish ship into Cardiff, a Breton ship into Penarth and another ship into Newport.[128] In 1576 it was reported that many ‘pyrattes (as it is comonly Reported) are furnyshed, vittled, ayded, Receaved and succored’ at Cardiff, and in 1577 the town was described as ‘the general resort of pirates, where they are sheltered and protected’.[129] Although the most notorious, Callice was not alone in his operations in the port. A 1576 a commission of enquiry identified ‘a greate nomber of names of Pyratts discouvered that have been receyved and lodged in thys Towne’.[130] The commission led to the trial of six men for piracy in 1581, and the eventual execution of one, but this by no means bought a resolution to the problem. In the same year the Primrose lying off the Mumbles was investigated on suspicion of carrying pirated goods. [131] The commissioners accepted that the Primrose herself was not acting as a pirate vessel, but that she was freighting goods which had been purchased from pirates off the coast of Devon. The close association of this ship and cargo with the customs officers is of particular interest. The cargo, which included brazilwood and pepper, was not entered in the customs accounts, and the customer reported that the crew ‘came daily to Swansea town and there made merry in sundry places of the town and behaved themselves very civilly and honestly’. In fact the customer’s warm opinion of the crew was such that he invited the purser and others ‘to dinner and supper with him at his house being in the Christmas holidays’ where he accepted a gift of two parrots.[132] Later still, in 1586 a pirate bought a captured Scottish ship into Penarth and was assisted in escape by Cardiff’s bailiffs. Sir Edward Stradling, the commissioner charged with suppressing piracy, reported that so far as the bailiffs were concerned, 'we never learned of any pirate arrived in this road wherein they have not showed their inclination'.[133]
Piracy itself was relatively unexceptional during this
period, but the distinguishing feature of Cardiff as a port compared to English
ports in the Bristol Channel, was the extent to which pirates were integrated
into the local economy and were associated with the authorities. It was not only the Cardiff bailiffs and
customs officials who were intimate with pirates. A sergeant of the admiralty
was also found to visit John Callice aboard his ship and to give him lodgings
in his house, and one of those accused of trading with pirates in 1577 accepted
that ‘he kept company with pirates in the Town of Cardif, as
generally all men there did’.[134] The
effectiveness of this cabal can be seen from the reticence of witnesses to
testify against those involved; the commissioners sent to investigate and
restrain piracy in the port reported to the Privy Council in 1577 that the
inhabitants ,
.. haue taken a generall
rule, that they wooll neyther accuse one another, nor yet answer to any matter
that toucheth them selfes vpon theyr othes, Althoughe they all confesse that
the most parte of the Inhabytants by this theyr harboring and receyving
of the Pyratts, haue felt such smart, and susteigne therby such discredit, with
forren nac'ons and countries, that they that travaill to other places to
maynteigne theyr lyving by trade of merchandize, dare not well be knowen
or to avowe the place of theyr dwelling at cardif. This we fynde partlie
to growe by the greate feare they haue of some of note which as is
supposed are to be touched, and for that cause (as yt seemeth chieflie) they
dare not disclose theyr knowledg's.. .[135]
The commissioners difficulty was compounded by the
controller ‘and other chief Offendors in receyving the Pyratts and theyr spoyles
haue and do absent them selfs from theyr dwelling places sythens or comyng to Towne, and cannot be founde’.[136]
Another commission eight years later also reported that they were unable to
find sufficient witnesses ‘notwithstanding open proclamation by them made as
well in the countie courte as in seuerall parishe
churches’.[137]
There therefore seems to have been a residual culture of non-cooperation or outright opposition to royal authority in the policing of affairs of maritime trade which extended even amongst certain of the crown officers appointed to the ports, and in bodies charged with policing maritime affairs.
Conclusion
The system of customs control has been seen to be far from wholly effective in the English ports studied, but the effectiveness of the customs officers in the port of Cardiff must have been greatly circumscribed when compared to their English counterparts. Whilst some senior customs officers faced hostility and opposition from local elites, including even from amongst the families of the marcher lords, others were so intimately linked with pirates and the marketing of their contraband that their returns cannot be considered reliable. Against this background the Welsh Exchequer records are unlikely to have been as full or as accurate as their English equivalents, even given the many shortcomings of those documents themselves.
The greater difference between the volumes of trade recorded in the Welsh port books and actual volumes of trade however may have been in the scope of legitimate trade which they covered. It appears that only a small percentage of the salt, coal, butter and iron sent coastwise were sent under a coastal cocket and so recorded in the coastal customs accounts. Rather, large and significant flows of trade across the Bristol Channel were not recorded in the port books outbound from Wales, nor inbound in England. This was certainly true for Bridgwater, probably true for Bristol, and most likely to have been the case for ports elsewhere in the region, particularly Gloucester. Outbound shipments of salt, iron, coal and probably butter were all found to have been considerably in excess of those subject to certification. There is concrete evidence for this practice in an earlier undated Bridgwater coastal certificate book which unusually also listed Welsh goods which were not subject to certification. Goods which were inbound from Barnstaple and Bristol were recorded as ‘per certificate’, whilst those from Tenby, Milford, Dovey and Newport had no note of a certificate and were recorded ‘ffrome Wales’. [138] The probable date of this document is from the reign of Henry VIII and was therefore before the amalgamation of English and Welsh customs. It seems therefore that to some degree this anomalous treatment of the coastal shipment of outbound Welsh goods may have continued in the aftermath of the amalgamation of customs, with perhaps the greater part of Welsh production being freighted domestically under letpass or provision. As was made clear above, the application of this exemption was not absolute, and for reasons which remain uncertain the later coastal accounts did record some trade from south Wales. This has implications for interpretation of the coastal accounts at other ports including Bristol, as it implies that they too had a larger trade arriving from Wales than that made apparent in the coastal port books. In the 1575/76 Bristol coastal account for the last two quarters of the year it is notable for instance that of 103 ships recorded inbound, only eleven were from the port of Cardiff. This figure seems low given the proximity of the port, and the large amounts of iron, salt, butter, cheese, leather goods and other agricultural products which were being produced in the region, and the demand for this which existed at Bristol.
The evidence presented here indicates that it is highly probable that there was a much more frequent and larger trade from the southern Welsh ports than was officially recorded or has previously been recognised. The testimony to the commissions to investigate piracy, in cases given to the court of Exchequer, and from the Bridgwater water bailiffs’ accounts gives a convincing picture of substantial illicit and licit trade passing through the Cardiff ports which fell outside Exchequer control. This has important implications for previous interpretations of the vitality and extent of Welsh trade, and of Welsh industrial development during this period. For instance assessments of the development of the Welsh coal industry have relied heavily on data from the Exchequer customs accounts. J.U. Nef based his estimate of production at the end of the sixteenth century on this source which he considered to be a ‘fairly complete record of the shipment of coal by sea’, and concluded that in contrast to the north east of England, Welsh coal production did not begin to accelerate until the later seventeenth century.[139] It lies outside the scope of this thesis to consider levels of coal production in the north east of England, and it is pertinent that N.J. Williams noted that the levels of coal recorded by the Great Yarmouth water bailiffs inbound from Newcastle upon Tyne were also consistently higher than those in the Exchequer accounts.[140] It nevertheless remains the case that much of the difference which Nef identified between the two regions could have been the result of differences in recording, since the larger part of Welsh coal output appears not to have been recorded in these documents. Moreover a reassessment is in order of his interpretation of Welsh coal production having only begun to accelerate in the late seventeenth century, since a much larger trade was being conducted from a much earlier period than can be traced in the coastal Exchequer accounts. Although he considered Nef’s estimates were probably too low, C.G.A. Clay echoed his views on the geographical trends of coal production, and considering the wider national picture in this context, concluded that the substitution of coal for wood did not become significant until the last third of the sixteenth century.[141] This chapter has demonstrated however that an important part of the domestic coal industry was not apparent to Clay, and the data in Figure 5.1 suggests that this may have been happening from an earlier date. The more recent work on this subject by John Hatcher is alive to the discrepancy between recorded shipments of coal from the region compared to contemporary descriptions of the trade by those such as Owen and Leland.[142] However, as with Clay, the scale of this discrepancy remained unknown to Hatcher, and his overall assessment of the development of the coal trade still left south Welsh production lagging far behind that of the North East, with a substantial increase in production not recognised until after the Civil War.[143]
So far as the iron industry is concerned, Schubert recognised that Welsh production was increasing in this period, but he, like Nef, based this assessment on data derived from the coastal accounts.[144] Whilst his conclusion is not incorrect, the scale of this appears to have been considerably greater than he was able to infer from this source, and underlines the claim that Welsh industrial development was more advanced and at an earlier stage than hitherto recognised. Even as recently as 2000, The Cambridge Urban History of Britain characterised the Welsh ports’ trade in this period as being mainly concerned with the domestic traffic of agricultural produce, and as having no overseas dimension at all in many years. [145] The evidence presented in this chapter suggests that this interpretation is misplaced. When consideration is given to domestic trade which was absent from the port books for legitimate reasons, the port of Cardiff appears rather to have conducted a predominantly industrial trade. When consideration is given to the number and size of the ships associated with the ports, and to the evidence for illicit overseas trade, the port appears to have had a significant international reach. It was indeed perhaps not dissimilar to the other southern Welsh port authority of Milford, which was described by George Owen at the end of the century as ‘especiallye of late years, is fallen much to trade to sea’.