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 Cardiff :: Conclusion :: Appendices :: Bibliography
Chapter Six: The Port of Milford
Milford forms the westernmost reach of the Bristol Channel, with several deep water ports which are less dependent on tidal conditions than those located further to the east. Located closer to Ireland than other ports in the Channel, and on the sea routes passing north and south through the Irish Sea, the ports of Milford were well placed to engage in the maritime trade of the wider region. The jurisdiction of the port of Milford extended from Worm’s Head at the tip of the Gower peninsula to Barmouth in north Wales.[1] The extent of the port therefore reached beyond the Bristol Channel, which for the purposes of this thesis ends at St Ann’s Head at the northern entrance to Milford Haven. The southern part of the port however lay within the Bristol Channel and encompassed the southerly coastlines of Pembrokeshire and Carmarthenshire.
Unlike other customs jurisdictions, Milford did not take its name from a particular port town, but from the extensive haven of Milford which reaches towards Pembroke and provides access to Haverfordwest at its head.[2] Unlike the customs administration in Glamorgan and Monmouthshire, which fell under the jurisdiction of the Earls of Pembroke and Worcester, Milford was under Crown control throughout the century. A collector of customs was appointed to the ports of Tenby and Pembroke in 1537 for instance.[3] Revenue returns were not made directly to the Exchequer in England however, and the administration of customs did not fall under the English Exchequer nor operate to the same rules until 1559. At this point the customs administration in Wales was amalgamated with that in England, and uniform systems of tax and reporting were introduced whereby the tax of tonnage was introduced on wine, and poundage on other goods.[4] Expenses were claimed that year for riding to all the ports and creeks between Worm’s Head and Barmouth to proclaim and notify the new arrangements.[5] Whilst the mid-century amalgamation of English and Welsh customs precludes the existence of national customs records for the port from earlier in the century, they do nevertheless survive from an earlier date than for the port of Cardiff, with the earliest being the overseas account for Milford from 1559/60.[6]
Separate Exchequer returns were submitted within the port for Milford and for Carmarthen, within which further ports were sometimes distinguished: Fishguard, Dovey, Haverfordwest, Newport, Tenby and Pembroke within the Milford accounts; and Laugharne, Llanelli, and Burry within the Carmarthen accounts.[7] There is thus scope for confusion as Milford was used in a multiplicity of senses. It referred to the jurisdiction of the whole port; to the part which included Tenby and ports within the haven (but excluded Carmarthen and nearby creeks); and, when Tenby was listed separately, to those ports which lay within Milford Haven only (i.e. principally Pembroke and Haverfordwest). The ‘port of Milford’ or simply Milford will here refer to the whole customs authority; ‘Pembrokeshire ports’ will refer to Tenby along with ports lying within the haven; and ‘Milford Haven ports’ will refer solely to those ports which lay within the haven.
Haverfordwest was a substantial town which acted as the judicial centre for the county of Pembroke, and had a population estimated between two and three thousand by the end of the century.[8] George Owen, who wrote a detailed description of many aspects of Pembrokeshire life at the end of the sixteenth century, described it as the most prosperous in Pembrokeshire, and as having a market which ‘is thought to be one of the greatest and plentefullest marketes (all thinges compared) that is within the Marches of Wales’.[9] Pembroke by contrast had suffered a considerable decline over the course of the century, particularly following the loss of its status as an administrative centre following the Act of Union.[10] The waning state of trade is confirmed by local customs returns in mid century which frequently recorded ‘nil because no such ships called’.[11] The town’s fortunes had evidently not revived in the final decades of the century as early in the reign of James I it was described as having more empty houses than any other town in the kingdom.[12] Lying outside Milford Haven on the southern coast of the county, Tenby was described in the 1530s by John Leland as being ‘very welthe by marchaundyce’, and by George Owen as ‘a good town, wealthy and well governed’.[13] It was identified in a 1566 survey as the principal port in the county, and was reported to be able to accommodate ships of 300 tons at all tides.[14] Further to the east Carmarthen was described in 1549 as being ‘a fayre market towne having a fair haven, and the ffarest towne in all south Wales and of most scevillyte’, and in 1602 as being the largest town in the whole of Wales and ‘fair and good in state’.[15] With an estimated mid-century population of 2,250 it was a substantial settlement and twice the size of Cardiff.[16] Strategically located at the head of a deep tidal inlet, and at the mouth of a long valley with a rich agricultural hinterland, it served as the administrative centre for west Wales.[17]
Turning to the smaller ports, Kidwelly was also in decline, although the reason in this instance was physical, caused by the encroachment of a sandbar across the harbour mouth.[18] It was described by Leland as ‘sore decayed’, and in 1566 as ‘late a port and nowe skant a landing place’; those licensed to load and unload ships were described as ‘the mayor and bayllyffes yf ther were any shippes or vesselles’.[19] On the opposite side of the Towy estuary, Laugharne had a more established maritime trade, but it was not a large settlement being described in 1566 as ‘a vyllage’ with ninety houses.[20] In the extreme east of the port, Burry and the adjacent village of Llanelli were even smaller, but their share of trade was more significant than their size would suggest as, like nearby Swansea, they were centres for the export of coal.
The heavily indented nature of the coastline of west Wales afforded a multitude of smaller creeks and landing places. Marros in Carmarthenshire was listed as a landing place in the 1566 survey but had ‘no licenser for lack of shyppes and vessels’.[21] Milford Haven itself contained an additional nineteen landing places to those already described, at least two of which were recorded as having ships of eight tons which engaged in overseas trade.[22] Lying outside the haven, Caldey Island and Stackpole were also listed, bringing the total number of potential landing places in the Bristol Channel part of the port to twenty seven.[23] The difficulties which this presented to the effective operation of customs control were recorded by Dr. Phaer in his mid century survey referred to in the previous chapter,
Here be grete transporting to Irelande of corne and money and many other things to other places wythowte comptrollment, for men may do what they will ere they be spied by th’officer and passe when they please by reason of the haven being so large and secrett.[24]
Phaer was writing in the period before the
introduction of the new customs regime, but as will made apparent below, the
customs officers subsequently appointed cannot be said to have reduced the
possibilities for evasion to any great extent.
The Exchequer
customs accounts are not the only customs records relating to the port of
Milford. As well as transcribing the post 1559 national Exchequer accounts
series, ‘the Welsh port books’, Lewis also collated information from other
sources collectively known as Ministers’ accounts.[25] Prior to 1559 different methods of customs
collection and recording pertained in different parts of Wales. To paraphrase
Lewis, for the coastlines of Cardigan and Carmarthenshire import and export
dues were nominally returned to the Exchequer at Carmarthen where the local chamberlain
enrolled the yearly profit on his annual return.[26] Occasionally the subsidiary, underlying
detailed documents survive. The
situation in Pembrokeshire and Haverford was different in that the customs dues
were included in the local manorial accounts of their respective lordships.
Some detailed underlying accounts in this respect survive up until 1544. Both
the Cardigan / Carmarthen series and the Haverford / Pembrokeshire series
include details of the prisage and butlerage of wine, duties which had been in
place since the reign of Edward I. In 1559 a new system was gradually
introduced whereby the Welsh customs administration was bought into line with
that in England. Also included in the Minister’s accounts tabulated by Lewis
are a series of accounts from 1547-1603 which ‘have been derived mainly from
the enrolments of the Customer and Collector accounts of the General Receiver
of the Crown Revenues in the counties of Glamorgan and Pembroke.’[27] These then were the equivalent to the
English enrolled accounts which were returned directly to the Exchequer.
Although these are expressed as monetary totals they do sometimes include
qualifying or additional material relating to volumes for some commodities in
particular years. None of the accounts
described here are as comprehensive as the port books themselves. They do not
usually include details of ships, ports, master, merchants, dates, or manifest,
nor was the scope of goods on which customs was levied as wide ranging in the
earlier series as it was to be after 1559. With these caveats in mind the
Minister’s accounts do nevertheless provide the only data for trade from the
period prior to the amalgamation with the English system of customs control and
accounting, and are extant for years in which the particular accounts do not
survive, and may therefore be used to supplement that information.
Grain
Camden’s Brittania, first published in 1588, described Carmarthenshire as ‘more fertile than in some adjoyning shires’, and Pembrokeshire as having ‘soile fair, fertile and fell of marle, yeelding plentie of corne’.[28] George Owen described corn as ‘the cheeffest and greatest commoditie that this sheere uttereth’, and as the commodity which was the ‘cheeffest that bringeth in money to the countrey’. [29] This was traded ‘partlie in the marketts of the countrye but principallye by sea to fraunce, spaine, irelande, northwales and other places’.[30] This picture of plenty is supported by licenses granted for the export of grain from the port such as that for 800 bushels of wheat made in 1597, or for 600 quarters of wheat and 300 quarters of oats in the same decade.[31]
Owen was writing from the perspective of the final years of the century and Table 6.1 indicates that there was indeed a rise in outbound shipments during this period. This is reflected only to a limited extent in the overseas Exchequer accounts, but is represented more strongly in the Ministers’ accounts. However, the evidence is not overwhelming and apart from 1592/93 does not really support Owen’s strong and specific statement. There is no indication of destination in the Ministers’ accounts, but the Exchequer accounts show no shipments to Spain or Ireland during the 1590s in the manner suggested by Owen. Shipments of grain to Spain during this period were in any case illegal and should not therefore be expected in the Exchequer accounts; but neither was the small cargo of wheat recorded to Ireland in 1585/86 normal commercial traffic as it was for provision of the English garrison there. The figures for 1593/94 represent 88 quarters, or approximately fifteen weys, of wheat which were shipped over a six month period from Milford to France before imposition of a parliamentary ban on the export of corn.[32] For comparison Gloucester shipped out 168 weys of barley and wheat in 1592/93, and Bridgwater shipped out 48 weys of grain during 1599/1600.[33] The situation in Milford was therefore certainly not exceptional when placed within the wider context of Bristol Channel trade.
Table 6.1 Port of Milford: exports and outbound coastal shipments of grain (weys).[34]
|
|
Exchequer Accounts |
Ministers’ Accounts |
|
|
|
Overseas |
Coastal |
|
|
1559/60 |
0 |
- |
0 |
|
1563/64 |
0 |
- |
0 |
|
1565/66 |
- |
33 |
0 |
|
1571/72 |
3 (France) |
- |
0 |
|
1585/86 |
4 (Ireland) |
73 |
0 |
|
1586/87 |
- |
71 |
0 |
|
1591/92 |
- |
- |
27 |
|
1592/93 |
- |
89 |
72 |
|
1593/94 |
15 (France) |
- |
17 |
|
1598/99 |
0 |
- |
0 |
Outbound coastal trade from the port was diverse and spasmodic with no distinguishable established or regular pattern. There does not appear to have been any enduring connections with particular ports, nor was the port characterised by the shipping of any particular type of grain. Coastal shipments made in 1585/86 were principally of wheat and barley to Bristol, Ilfracombe and Barnstaple; those made in 1586/87 represent rye shipped from Tenby in the first quarter of 1587 to locations in Gloucestershire and Monmouth; and in 1592/93 were a mixture of wheat, barley and rye to Bristol, Barnstaple and locations in north Wales. A shipment of ten quarters of wheat was made aboard the Elizabeth from Tenby to Bristol in October 1592.[35] The coastal books examined for ports elsewhere in the Bristol Channel also show only a very small and sporadic trade in corn from Milford with the largest shipment amounting to just over three weys.[36]
As well as shipping out grain, the port also received it inbound as shown in Table 6.2. This reflects both the exceptionally bad harvest of 1586, and the very good harvests of 1592 and 1593. The great bulk of the 81 weys imported to Carmarthen in 1586 was a single shipment of wheat from the east coast port of Lyn.
Table 6.2 Port of Milford: inbound coastal shipments of wheat, barley and rye (weys)
|
|
1565/66 |
1585/86 |
1592/93 |
|
Carmarthen |
0 |
81 |
0 |
|
Tenby |
0 |
5 |
0 |
|
Milford Haven |
10 |
19 |
0 |
Carmarthen is notable in the historical record for the frequency of complaints made by the town concerning the shortage of grain. Dr. Phaer described the adjoining shire as ‘very bare of corne’ as a consequence of which the population ‘be not able to lyve of their owne provision, for the most parte of their tillage is otes, and are served of wheate and malte out of the Foreste of Deane and other parties.’[37] In 1550 the Privy Council ordered the authorities at Bridgwater and Gloucester to ‘permitt thinhabitantes of Carmarthen in South Wales to transport thither sufficient grayne for them from tyme to tyme’.[38] In 1573 the Council overruled a stay on the movement of corn to allow three men ‘to buye as myche as might be spared for the relief of the countie of Carmarden in Wales’.[39] In 1586 the town lobbied the Privy Council to authorise their nominated agent to purchase ‘some convenient quanties of mault’ in Gloucestershire.[40] The Council subsequently extended this permission to include purchases at Southampton, Hampshire and London authorising Richard Nashe to ‘buy, provide and convaye by water or otherwise unto Carmarthen so muche of that kinde of graine as maie well be spared without danger of greater dearthe and inhansement of prices’.[41] Likewise in 1586 Lord Burghley was prevailed upon by the town to press Gloucester to supply Carmarthen with ‘some quantitie of mault for their relief’.[42]
The Exchequer accounts show that the dearth of which Carmarthen complained appears to have been very specific. It was not a dearth of grain for baking, but a shortage of malt for brewing which was the cause of concern to the town’s authorities. Table 6.3 makes clear that imports of malt were far in excess of the imports of grain outlined in Table 6.2. Moreover Table 6.3 shows that the dearth of which Carmarthen complained was specific to the town and did not extend to other port towns in the area. Sir John Lloyd in his History of Carmarthenshire considered it ‘hardly credible that they should have found it necessary to import such considerable quantities of foodstuffs as those recorded in the customs returns', yet concluded that ‘the reason was that the shire suffered from periodic visitations of famine, and that the amount of crops raised in the countryside was not sufficient to meet the exigencies of a temporary scarcity of corn’.[43] The analysis made here suggests that he was right to doubt the need for Carmarthen to import so much grain, but wrong in his ascribing this to periodic dearth. Breakdown of the data shows that Carmarthen was not importing unusual quantities of wheat or barley, but of malt.
Table .6.3 Port of Milford: inbound coastal shipments of malt (weys)
|
1565/66 |
1585/86 |
1592/93 |
|
|
Carmarthen |
337 |
396 |
278 |
|
Tenby |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Milford
Haven |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Malt was of course a key ingredient for the brewing trade, and concern about the number of alehouses in parts of Wales had been expressed by the Council of the Marches in Wales in 1573. This had led to a situation where,
thieves, murderers and women of light conversation are harboured, rogues and vagabonds maintained, whoredom, filthy and detestable life much frequented, unlawful games as Tables, Dice, Cards, Bowls, Kayles, Quoits, and such like commonly excercised…[44]
More direct concerns about the situation in Carmarthen were expressed in 1596 by the Privy Council which wrote to the mayor condemning him for allowing an ‘excessive and nedeles nomber’ of alehouses in the town which served ‘only to mayntaine disorder and unnecessary consumpcion’.[45] The Privy Council’s concerns seems justified given that there were a startling 80 alehouses in the town which had previously been recorded as having only 328 households altogether.[46]
Chapter Four
demonstrated that there was a strong trading relationship between Gloucester
and Carmarthen, and that this had increased during the period when Gloucester
and Bristol were engaged in litigation. Carmarthen’s port books confirm that 91
percent of imported malt described in Table 6.3 came from Gloucester. It is
also interesting to note that Carmarthen’s ships accounted for only four
percent of this trade, with 95 percent being freighted aboard ships from the
port of Gloucester. Figure 6.1 expresses this relationship graphically by
representing the number of ships sailing to or from three major regional ports
as a percentage of all ship movements entered in Milford’s coastal port books.[47] It can be seen that whilst both the Milford
Haven ports and Tenby enjoyed a close relationship with Bristol, Carmarthen had
a significantly greater trade with Gloucester than either of these places. It
can also be seen that Barnstaple conducted a proportionately greater trade with
Haverfordwest than with either the Milford Haven ports or with Tenby. In
contrast there was no traffic at all recorded between Carmarthen and
Barnstaple. This therefore provides further evidence of bilateral type trading
links operating within the Bristol Channel.
Although ale was brewed without using hops, hops are necessary to brew beer; they impart flavour but more importantly prolong its shelf life. 6.4 shows that inbound coastal shipments of hops were more evenly distributed across the region’s ports with Milford having a similar profile to Carmarthen, in contrast to the situation with malt where Milford was seen to import none at all.
Table 6.4 Port of Milford: inbound coastal shipments of hops (c)
|
1565/66 |
1585/86 |
1592/93 |
|
|
Carmarthen |
21 |
21 |
8 |
|
Haverfordwest |
- |
8 |
21 |
|
Milford Haven |
25 |
21 |
22 |
|
Tenby |
6 |
- |
6 |
Hops are not known to have been grown in south Wales in this period and Table 6.4 therefore suggests that Milford must have had a brewing industry of a similar size to that at Carmarthen. A licence for the export of 50 tons of beer from Milford or Bristol in 1571 also indicates that Milford Haven’s brewing industry was well established.[48] Tables 6.3 and 6.4 therefore suggest that unlike Carmarthen, Pembrokeshire’s malt requirements appear to have been met from local production.
The reason for the deficit in malt at Carmarthen may partly be explained by the willingness of local merchants to sell it elsewhere rather than to deal in it locally. That this was the eventual opinion of the Privy Council is made clear by a further extract from their letter to the mayor in 1596,
Whereas wee are informed that you do …….. ingrosse great store of corne and make more quantity of barley mault then all the rest of the shere, ….. wherby the prices of grayne are inhaunsed and the corne bestowed there is solde to suche as transporte the same out of the shere, to the great offence of the inhabitantes..[49]
In order to maximise profits local merchants appear to have been using regional supplies of grain to manufacture malt, as well as to service a wider trade in malt and grain in which they acted as middlemen. The concern of the national government with engrossing corn was not limited to Carmarthen, but there is other evidence which supports the Council’s concerns and indicates that the traffic in malt and corn from the ports of Milford was considerable despite the evidence to the contrary in the Exchequer accounts. Indeed the Privy Council seem to have been alive to the possibility that the grain which Carmarthen purported to require for its own needs may have been directed elsewhere, adding the rider to their orders to allow the passage of grain that bonds were to be taken to ensure ‘the deliverie of it there onlie’.[50] In 1577 the Exchequer bought a case against George Clarke, a customs officer of the port, who it was alleged had ‘let passe over the seas...grete store of graynes into Spayne and Irelande without licence in respecte of somes of monye corruptly received by him and his deputtes’.[51] During the same period in testimony to a separate Exchequer commission of enquiry, a merchant from Barnstaple was alleged to have had ‘a barke laden with a thousande wealshe boushells of wheat and barlie which he transported from there to france and paid no custome in Millford at his departure for the same’.[52] Clarke, who was no doubt keen to point to the diligence with which he undertook his duties, himself testified to the commission that,
at another tyme about iii yeres past one Albane Stepneth hadde certaine wheat to the number of sixe skore quarters lofted at Carmarthen And did lade the same in a barke called The Grace of God at the key of Carmarthen to transporte the same over the seas. And this depnonet fyndinge the said barke hauled down to the greene castell withowt either entrie made in the custome howse or cocket hadde in that behaulf made seasure of the same....[53]
Other testimony to the commission related how corn ostensibly bound for Carmarthen was shipped to Ireland; that 4,000 bushels of wheat had been seized and sold privately by the customs officer; and that a bribe had been accepted by Clarke to allow the passage of 2,000 bushels of wheat to Spain without licence.[54] These are far larger quantities than appear in the customs accounts, and the sheer amount of instances cited, along with the spread of evidence taken, suggests that the trade which is described did occur. The alleged scale of it is less certain however since the testimony given forms part of a series of mutually recriminatory allegations made between the customer and searcher, each being keen to emphasise, and no doubt exaggerate, the extent of malpractice of the other.
To fully understand the nature of the trade described in the port it is also necessary therefore to understand the context of these enquiries and the dispute which had arisen between the customer and searcher in the port. The reason why this dispute arose is unclear but at heart it was essentially about commercial rivalry between the two parties. John Vaughan, Customer of the port of Milford, sought to gain control of the evidently lucrative source of income that attached to the post of searcher held by George Clarke. Vaughan was the principal mover behind the Exchequer case against Clarke described above, to which his testimony was quite straightforward: that during two and a half years Clarke had not kept his hours at the customs house; that no entries had been made either inwards or outwards in the customs book; and that he had ‘hearde pyrattes have taken meate and drinke of hyme as yt was reported’.[55] Vaughan may have been less motivated by a desire for propriety in the execution of the office however than by the bribes which were garnered by the customs officers in the port of Tenby and Carmarthen, such as the Ł3 reported as given by George Deepe ‘for a brybe to suffer a certen veshell or bote of the said George to passe over the sease to spayne with prohibted wares’, or the Ł10 received ‘to suffer a shipe called the Societe of Tenby to passe over the sease from Tynbye to Spayne’.[56] Clarke’s alleged mode of operation seems to have been to seize vessels which were laden and ready to sail, and then either accept a sum to let them proceed, or else sell the vessel and its content for his own gain. Only rarely did he advance half the sum gained to the central Exchequer as the law required. Clarke claimed to have been ‘brused and threatened to be cast over boarde’, and his servant ‘sore wounded in three places on the headd’ when he tried to stop the freighting of unlicensed leather which had been sanctioned by Vaughan.[57] Rivalry between Vaughan and Clarke became particularly acute when Vaughan boarded the Charitie of Bristol, a vessel which had already been allowed to proceed to sea by Clarke. The incensed master and crew ‘carried the said customer into the said sea and putt him on land on an iland called caldey’.[58] Vaughan further angered a group of Tenby merchants when he seized the 120 ton Tenby ship Garyth, laden with wheat and leather bound for Spain. One of the merchants concerned expressed the opinion that any merchant who did not deceive the customs should be slain; another expressed the opinion that the customer should have been thrown overboard; and the third openly called him a traitor.[59] Two of these merchants then proceeded to attack Vaughan and his deputy as they returned along the highway from Tenby to Milford ‘usyenge these words as vyllens rogues and vacabondes’.[60]
The course of events is somewhat complicated by the death of John Vaughan by 1572 and the appointment of his successor in 1575 who was also called John Vaughan and who occupied the office through to 1596.[61] It is not always entirely clear which John Vaughan is being referred to in the series of questions and responses described in the Exchequer files. That the dispute continued under John Vaughan II is clear however, but it also appears that a resolution of sorts was eventually brokered when John Vaughan II agreed not to testify against Clarke in exchange for Clarke selling his letters patent to the searchership to Vaughan’s own nominee.[62] Vaughan crucially appears to have secured the backing of Lord Burghley (the lord treasurer) in this protracted dispute. In 1577 he wrote an effusive letter of thanks to Burghley, on behalf of himself and his brothers, for saving him from malicious people and from his otherwise having been ‘utterly over throwne by injurious dealinge’.[63]
Vaughan appears to have had an extraordinary stranglehold on civic office in the port. He simultaneously held the post not only of customer, but also justice of the peace for Carmarthen, the mayoralty and town clerkship of Carmarthen, was bailiff of the liberty of Kidwelly, and held the stewardship of Kilgarren.[64] His commercial interests were said to be no less extensive. As well as having three or four coal mines, he owned a tan house adjacent to his country home, and a store house at the waterside at Llanstephan.[65] Along with his son Walter, and another partner, he was also said to be owner of three ships, The Lyon, The Grace of God and The Wheel of Fortune.[66] The Grace was the larger vessel at 24 tons and was alleged to have sailed to France on more than one occasion freighting leather. The Wheel was also said to have shipped leather overseas, as well as being used for transporting coal and cloth to Barnstaple; she was eventually sold as payment for debts which Walter had incurred with a man who was subsequently gaoled at Exeter for piracy.[67] The holding of offices in addition to the post of customer was illegal, as was the owning of ships and private trading by customs officers either on their own account or via a proxy, yet Vaughan seems to have been able to conduct such activities with impunity.
John Vaughan’s dealings with pirates were sometimes of a more immediate nature. In 1588 he was ordered to pay over Ł166 as restitution for a Scottish ship, Elizabeth, and her cargo which had been sold to him and others in the full knowledge that they were receiving pirated goods.[68] Vaughan’s dealings with pirates were not unusual in the port. George Clarke was known to keep a victualling house where he supplied ‘both for dyvers sea faringe men and for pirattes’ including the notorious Callis and his crew.[69] Callice was of particular concern to the Privy Council, which on learning that he had been allowed to pass through Haverfordwest wrote to the local authorities expressing the opinion that ‘their Lordships do not a little marvel at the negligence of such as are Justices in those parts that knowing the said Callice to be so notable an offender would suffer him to depart’.[70] They considered that ‘for a show and colour of justice’ the authorities had ‘apprehended some of the poorest and permitted the chiefest pirates to depart’.[71] The mayor of Haverfordwest acknowledged that Callis had been in the town but defended himself against the accusation that he had allowed that ‘so notorious a pirate should be openly lodged & socoured amongest us’,
I leaste knowe of his leving here and have of all other in this towne as lyttell cause to favor hym or any of his sorte ffor when my neighbors goodes and myne .. to the value of nere a thousand pounds were by englishe pirates taken from us and parte thereof brought to Cardiff (where they saye the said calys dothe openly & comenly resorte) I sawe there a bale of madder of my owne prised & sold for xxti nowes which cost me xxli in bristowe .... I knew not of his leaving here and yett as I have sithence learned it is true that he the said calys a lyttell before xristmas last laye in this towne one night in the house of Roger morcrofft & of hym bought a horse & the next morowe affter very early departed toward Cardiff very fewe here knewe hym ffor I never hard that he was ever in this towne beffore.[72]
Although the Mayor seems to have had good grounds for grievance on this occasion, his attempt to direct the admiralty’s attention to Cardiff was disingenuous as there was a widespread and long established interchange with pirates in the port of Milford itself which was alleged to be sanctioned at the highest levels. Dr. Phaer in his examination into customs administration in South Wales had described Milford as ‘the great resort and succour of all pirates and enemies in stormes, whom the country cannot resist to lie at their pleasure’.[73] In 1552 Sir John Perrot was ordered by the Privy Council to send to trial in London Philip ap Rees, a pirate ‘whom he and others in that countrie supporteth’.[74] Perrot was the most important figure in the region, widely believed to be the bastard son of Henry VIII, he rose to become Vice-Admiral of South Wales (1562), Member of Parliament for Pembrokeshire (1563), Mayor of Haverfordwest (1570), President of Munster (1572), a member of the Council of the Marches in Wales (1574) and finally Lord President of Ireland in 1584.[75] His local influence was understandably immense. Owen wrote of him that he had, ‘by reason of the rigours that he useth and the heap of retainers that do many times attend him, the most part of the gentlemen and freeholders of the county of Pembroke at his commandment’.[76] In 1564 he was again implicated in matters of piracy when the Privy Council expressed bewilderment at the ‘marvelous insufficiencye’ of his deputy and relation who had allowed a party of pirates to escape for a second time, advising him to appoint ‘some more skilful and discreet man’.[77] In 1576 he was equally uncooperative when he failed to attend in his capacity as a commissioner of enquiry into piracy in South Wales, due to ‘reason of infirmities as yt seemeth by his letteres of excuse’.[78] This was no impediment however to his being charged with seeking out pirates when he was admiral of a squadron off Ireland in 1579.[79]
Sir John Wogan was another senior figure who trafficked with pirates. Sir John was one of the commissioners for the suppressing of piracy in the port and was instructed by the Privy Council to secure payment from the various parties who were implicated in the purchasing of goods illegally taken from the Elizabeth described above.[80] This task was no doubt made easier by the fact that Sir John was himself listed as one of those having received the stolen goods. He was in any case well placed to be knowledgeable about the activities of piratical traders as he had previously been ordered to repay the owner of a Breton ship which had been seized by pirates and subsequently sold by Sir John himself.[81] Also implicated were members of the Devereux family, powerful and rich landowners in the counties of South Wales, who included the Earl of Essex amongst their members.[82] In 1577 a pirate called Hicks captured the Jonas of Konigsberg and sold her cargo of timber, wheat and rye whilst anchored off Pembroke to purchasers who included Sir George Devereux, James Perrot, and the mayor of Pembroke.[83] A servant of Sir John Perot boarded the ship and acted as purser for the sale. The mayor then despatched part of his share of the spoils aboard his ship Maudlen to Galicia.[84] Senior ecclesiastical figures also placed the law secondary to their commercial interests. No less a person than the bishop of St David’s was reported to have ‘hindered’ the issuing of cockets and warrants within the creek of St David’s.[85] This then is the context in which the returns made to the Exchequer from the port must be understood. The customs officers were operating against a background in which the divide between legal and illegal commercial activities was regularly breached by all members of society, and within an environment dominated by the powerful figures of Perrot and Devereux with their extensive network of retainers and followers.
There are indications that the dispute between Vaughan and Clarke was part of wider disputes between followers of Sir John Perrot and Robert Devereux, and by extension between Tenby and Carmarthen. Tenby lies in Pembrokeshire which was within the orbit of Sir John’s influence, whilst Carmarthen lies in the adjoining county which was more influenced by the Devereux.[86] Perrot was involved in a long running struggle with John Vaughan’s namesake Richard who was deputy Vice Admiral for South Wales. In this capacity Richard Vaughan endeavoured to obstruct and capture pirates, but was frequently obstructed by the sometimes overt actions of Perrot.[87] Richard Vaughan went so far as to press charges against Perrot accusing him of tyrannical conduct, trafficking with pirates and subversion of justice.[88] It may simply have been a coincidence that Richard and John shared the same surname, which is after all not uncommon, but it is interesting to note that whilst John Vaughan held the post of bailiff of Kidwelly in Carmarthenshire, on the opposite side of the estuary, Laugharne was associated with Perrot who was recorded as ‘lorde of the soile’ there.[89] Laugharne was a particularly active centre of opposition to Richard Vaughan. In 1577 the crew of a ship lying off Laugharne, and laden with cargo belonging to Sir John Perrot, denied Vaughan’s authority and repulsed him with arms.[90] In contrast, George Clarke, searcher at Tenby in Pembrokeshire, seems to have enjoyed the support of Perrot’s faction. His testimony to the Exchequer commission of enquiry is notable for the way in which it implicates at least some of Sir John’s enemies and associates them with the Carmarthen / Vaughan faction. For instance Clarke alleged that Albane Stepney had loaded wheat aboard The Grace of God, Vaughan’s ship, without cocket or licence. Stepney, a lawyer and receiver general of the diocese, was also one of Perrot’s most tenacious opponents.[91]
Contemporaries recognised these networks of clientage and patronage. One observer complained to Robert Devereux that ‘most of them that wears Your Honour’s cloth in this country is to have Your Honour’s confidence and to be made sheriffs, lieutenants, stewards, subsidy-men, searchers, sergeants on the sea, muster men – everything is fish that comes to their net’.[92] The inclusion of the post of searcher in this list is of particular relevance in this context. Historians seeking to understand the trading practices of the port, and the information contained in its customs returns, must also therefore recognise the local political context in which these were being undertaken.
Corrupt practices amongst customs officials were not of course unique to Milford, but they do appear to have been more extensive here than elsewhere. Effective operation of customs control was certainly compromised by the close relationship which existed between the customer and controller, office holders who it was intended would act independently of each other to ensure that neither was corrupt. Yet customer John Vaughan and controller John Parrie were brothers in law ‘so linked togither in ffrendeshippe and of long tyme retained in one house together and agreeable eache to the other in anie thinge that they woulde doe directlie or touching thear said severall offices wherby the Queens majistie hath been greatlie and continuallie endeangered’ according to one witness.[93] It is recognised, both by contemporaries and historians, that customs posts were sought after chiefly because of the opportunities they afforded the holder to enrich himself through the taking of bribes, and through dealing in contraband goods.[94] At the same time the officer needed to ensure that a sufficient stream of revenue was returned to the Exchequer to avoid provoking the intervention of central authority. The successful customer can thus be seen as one who was able to maximise his own income by reducing to a minimum that which was returned to the Crown. Although the officers at Milford were in many respects operating in a similar way to their counterparts at ports elsewhere in the Bristol Channel, and indeed nationally, what distinguished Milford is that the application of this maxim seems to have been successfully achieved to a greater degree than in any other port in the Bristol Channel during this period. Both the scale and the extent of disregard for royal authority displayed not only by customs officers, but by all echelons of society, appears to have been greater here than elsewhere. At the very least the customs officers at Milford can be said to have enjoyed a vigorous degree of independence from the English authorities. This was exemplified for instance when in 1571 commissioners sent to Tenby found that those ordered to attend them ‘most obstinatelye did not onlye omit to appeare accordinglie but also beinge further sought by orders conveyed by officers did absent them selves and coulde not be founde’. [95] It is this context which perhaps therefore explains the discrepancies between the picture of Milford’s trade in grain described in contemporary narratives and that presented by the evidence in the Exchequer accounts.
Dairy Products
Owen listed butter and cheese as being the fourth commodity in order of importance produced in Pembrokeshire at the end of the century. He noted that cheese was shipped to the neighbouring counties, sometimes by sea, and sometimes ‘to Ireland for provision of the Queenes garrison there'.[96] He may have been referring to the approximately 1,500 stones shipped to Galway in May 1599 under license by a London merchant.[97] There was only one other outward shipment of cheese noted in the accounts sampled, apart from sailors’ own provision, which was for 80 stones in December 1565 to Silly.[98] Additionally there were no inbound shipments of cheese or butter from Milford found in any of the other Bristol Channel coastal port books studied. There were however instances of cheese being shipped into Milford from other ports in the Bristol Channel, principally from Barnstaple - such as the 100 stones brought aboard the Trynitie by Richard Bennet from Northam in November 1585.[99]
Owen noted that more butter was produced in the shire than in former times and that it ‘especiallie’ was shipped by sea, but added the rather elliptical qualification, ‘but this may not be knowne’.[100] It certainly would not be known from a reading of the Exchequer accounts sampled which featured only one outward cargo, of twenty barrels in December 1585 (along with the cheese to Silly). Rather than Milford being an exporter of butter, the Exchequer accounts show frequent shipments into the port. This surfeit of inbound shipments over exports is perhaps explained by an order issued by the Privy Council in 1591 forbidding the export of butter from Pembrokeshire to Spain.[101] There is only one reference to butter in the extensive testimony referred to above taken during the 1570s so the problem of illegal export would not seem to have been as pronounced as it was with other commodities.[102] Nevertheless, given that all of the merchants recorded shipping butter coastwise were local men, and that sixteen of the twenty ships freighting it were also local, there must be a strong possibility that they were then reloading the goods into seagoing ships and exporting it; effectively exporting the butter under colour of a coastal cocket. This would seem to offer the best explanation for Owen’s comment, as well as explain why frequent imports of butter were required to so rich a pastoral region. The customs accounts therefore appear to omit virtually all of an overseas trade in butter which was regarded as being amongst the most important of the period in this region.
Leather
Outward shipments of white leather were a notable feature of Milford’s trade. Shipments to Bristol from Carmarthen, Tenby and Milford were recorded in all of the coastal accounts sampled. Haverfordwest was not recorded exporting this particular item, but nevertheless had a strong association with leather trades which comprised the town’s foremost industry.[103] The range of skins exported from the port was wide including those of goat, sheep, lamb, calf, fox, coney, black coney, otter, marten and stoat. These were shipped in an unworked state and, as was found in the port of Cardiff, there is no indication of the export of the products of the guilds of glovers, saddlers or shoemakers which existed at Carmarthen and Haverfordwest.[104]
Milford was unusual compared to the other Bristol Channel ports in that calf skins were not the foremost item of leather recorded outbound. For instance in 1585/86 48 dozen calf skins were shipped out compared to a much greater 21,000 lamb skins.[105] Moreover Milford was the only Bristol Channel port which shipped lambskins, all the others shown to have been importing them from Ireland. This is consistent with Owen’s description of the area immediately to the north of Tenby as one which ‘utterth store of hides, tallow and sheepe skinnes and lamb skinns’.[106] Owen then added one of his allusive qualifications, ‘this last commoditie little regarded but such as the trade therof hath enriched divers men, neither will I here laye downe what somes of money as I have hard hath been paied in these sheeres for lambeskinns in one maie by londoners'.[107] One of the Londoners to whom Owen referred may have been John Mylward, a London skinner, who was recorded shipping eight packs of lamb skins to Bristol in June 1593.[108] This shipment was also recorded inbound in the Bristol coastal account and so there is no indication that anything underhand was taking place in this instance despite the tone of Owen’s comment.
As well as furnishing sheep and lambskins, the pastoral economy of the port’s hinterland also provided the basis for a wider trade in leather. Owen listed cattle as the second greatest commodity produced in Pembrokeshire, and noted that along with sheep these had increased in number greatly in recent years.[109] Even so local herds and flocks were by no means sufficient to meet the totality of local demand for leather, as in addition to exports, the port books also show considerable coastal inbound shipments and some overseas imports of leather and animal skins. In 1598/99 these included several dickers of tanned leather from Ireland, along with some unprocessed hides and substandard sheep skins from disease afflicted flocks.[110] In 1586 and 1593 coastal imports of Spanish derived leather known as fernando buck were recorded inbound via Barnstaple and Bristol.[111] The importation of supplementary supplies of leather from overseas, and the import of leather of a particular quality unobtainable locally, are not inconsistent with the established and successful leather trades described above. It is however incongruous that leather was also being received from Bristol, which was ostensibly also the destination for the majority of outbound shipments. These inbound shipments were substantial and regular: in 1565/66 they were in excess of 30 dickers, and in 1598/99 they amounted to 69 dickers.
The reason for the need to import tanned leather even though it was also being shipped from the port is perhaps explained by the understandable refusal of some local tanners to sell their wares to local leatherworkers when they could sell it for higher prices elsewhere. Griffith Jankings, a Carmarthen shoemaker, complained that he was offered 32 dickers of leather at Ł4 per dicker but ‘was not of habilite to buy so muche and to make payment for the same’. [112] The seller then explained that ‘the showmakers in Englende that doth buye from him and other marchauntes leather and therby do gaine xxs or xxxs in a diaie’.[113] The vendor in this particular instance was a Frenchman, Peter Parrie, who was acting in concert with John Vaughan, customer of the port and reputed owner of a tan house. According to the testimony offered to the Exchequer commission of enquiry in this regard, the principal and most profitable market for Parrie and Vaughan’s leather was not in England however, but overseas. Geffrey David, a bargeman from Carmarthen explained how he ‘accordinge to his accustomed manner repaired abowte tyde tyme to the key of carmarthen’ where he observed people loading leather into a lighter.[114] David was then approached by a man who,
asked of him whither he woulde take hyre for to goe with one Morris barker mariner in the said lighter to the longe poole and this deponent asked what he shoulde doe there. The said Thomas said to healpe the said lighter and leather theirin being to the Brittonnes shippe that roade at the said longe poole and then this deponente said the same Thomas that he would not meadle in carrienge downe of leather and the said Thomas said to this deponent that there was no danger therin and that he woulde warrant this deponent And therupon the said Thomas agreed wth this deponent to give him for his paines iis whereof the said Thomas paide them partlie to this deponent xiid and tolde him that he shoulde receave the other xiid of Richard pher .....then this deponente repaired to the said lighter wherin the said leather was and this deponent with the said moris baker the same lighter being manned wth v other personnes whoe hadd swords bucklers and forest bills ................Whoe together with the said bardge and leather being carred to the longe poole where the said Britoons shippe roade being vii myles distance from Carmarthen the said personnes did lade the said leather owt of the said bardge or lighter and layed yt a boarde the Britoon beinge a barke of l tie tonnes which barke a little before had been at Carmarthen.[115]
On his return David was directed to Carmarthen castle to receive the balance of payment for his labour that night. There he found Richard Pher at dinner. Pher, who was brother in law to Customer John Vaughan, duly gave him the 12d owing. Other testimony described how Vaughan rented Parrie a storehouse located at the waterside at Llanstephan, south of Carmarthen.[116] Parrie, who was ‘vearie familiar’ with Vaughan, kept the only key to the store himself and used the building to store leather prior to its despatch to sea. Another witness described how,
The customer doth permitte and hath sufffered all waies at Carmarthen to bee laden caulves skynnes and goate skinnes in the harbour without anie cocket granted, custome or anie other dueties paide to the queen’s majestie.[117]
The shoemakers of Haverfordwest were particularly incensed by this traffic as some of them had tried to buy the leather which had been shipped overseas, but their offer had been refused by Parrie. They consequently gathered at the quayside at Carmarthen and,
did there endeavour to enter into the said pinishe to staye the same and the leather therein but the said Walter Vaughan and Ffrances Lloide accompanied with Phes ap Ry of Carmarthen and others to the number of x or xii personnes with weapons there being carried did with stand and reskewe them with their weapons dryvng them from the said pinishe in which reskewe they harted and wounded the said john ap john in the side..[118]
It was ‘no marvaill that leather waxed deare ffor that the same was conveighed beyond the seas owt of thies partes’, and one witness had seen ‘howse loads of leather sondrie tymes goinge towards the sea..’.[119]
The testimony recorded was all taken after the death of Vaughan so his defence to the allegations remains unknown. However, that of his brother in law, who was controller of the port, and notably also called Parrie, stands in its place. John Parrie challenged the commissioners contention that it was illegal to issue cockets for the transport of leather, saying that ‘he knoweth no lawe to the contrarie to forbidde the officers so to doe’, and testified that he and Vaughan ‘used to grannte cockettes to all persons seekinge the same from port to port within the realm’.[120] He denied that any deceitful or false cockets had been issued and maintained that the commissioners only had to consult the port books to find a true and accurate record of trade. Whether the issuing of coastal cockets was illegal or not, it does not seem to have always acted as an impediment to the subsequent illegal shipment of cargoes of leather overseas under colour of a coastal cocket. William Blackehurst, deputy customer at Carmarthen, took a bond of Ł200 from a Frenchman and issued a certificate to allow the transport of 41 dickers of tanned leather to Barnstaple, which he subsequently learned, had been transported to France.[121] Another witness related how this had been taken to Ilfracombe where it was transhipped aboard the Angel of Bideford and taken to Brest.[122] That leather continued to be shipped illegally from the port after the date of these testimonies is indicated by a list of seizures made by the searcher in 1593/94 which included 28 dozen small Welsh calf skins and 2,000 Irish skins.[123]
There is abundant
evidence therefore that one of the foremost regional industries conducted
certainly a large part, and possibly the greater part of its commercial
transactions with scant regard to the
controls which were theoretically in place to regulate this trade. Leather was smuggled from all of the Bristol
Channel ports in this period, including from Bristol itself, and this was often
undertaken with the connivance of the customs officers. In the port of Milford
however, the customs officers appear to have been themselves amongst the
principal merchants engaged in the trade and had such strong political
connection that they were able to act with impunity.
Fish
The existence of a substantial fishing fleet is made clear from a survey of ships undertaken in 1566.[124] Sixteen ships ranging from six to sixteen tons were listed in the port which sailed ‘upp Severne afishinge’ or ‘to Ireland afishinge’. It is therefore quite surprising to find that Milford imported fish, but a small and irregular inward trade was apparent throughout the period for which Exchequer customs accounts are available.[125] The importation of herring from Ireland appears to have ceased by the very end of the century however, the reason for which is eloquently provided by George Owen,
These kinde of fishe is taken on the shores of this countrey in great abondance, especiallie for the viii t yeares past, more then in former yeeeres, the places of their takeing in this shire most usuallie was in Fishgard, Newport and Dinas, where for manie yeares, and even from the beginninge there hath some quantitie beene yearly taken, of later yeares they haue resorted to Broade havon, Galtop roade, Martin havon, Hopgain and St Brides, ad haue beene plentifullie taken to the great Comoditie of the Countrye, and now in the yeare 1602 they haue been taken wthin Milford havon, and in the Roades of Tenby and Caldey, and neere St Davids, and generallie in everye parte of the sea shoare about this shire from the fall of Tyvy to Earewere; so that it seemed they had laied siedge by sea about the Countrey; so greatlie hath god bestowed his blessings that waie upon this poore Countrey, the Lord make vs thankefull therefore.[126]
This abundance may explain the only instance of fish being exported overseas in the Bristol Channel accounts studied: in 1571 sixteen lasts and eight barrels of white herring were shipped to France aboard the Francis of Le Conquet.[127] A reading of Owen however suggests that this sole entry may be unrepresentative of the wider picture as he recorded that the abundance of herring along the coast ‘being in great store and sold to partes beyonde sea procureth alsoe some store of money’.[128]
Turning to the wider Atlantic, the first imports of Newfoundland fish were not recorded until March 1566 when a small shipment arrived at Carmarthen from Bristol.[129] In December of that year a more substantial and direct cargo arrived at Milford from Newfoundland when Sir John Perrot and David Wogan entered for 19,000 fish aboard the 50 ton bark Perote.[130] Although this was the only direct shipment recorded in the Milford accounts, it cannot have been the only one as in September 1566 an outward shipment of 5,000 ‘newland fish’ was made from the port to Bristol, and in 1598 2,000 fish ‘de terra nova’ were recorded inbound at Bristol from Milford.[131] This suggests that Atlantic cod were arriving into Milford and then being shipped out on the regular coastal trade to Bristol to meet demand there. On the other hand shipments of Atlantic cod continued to arrive into the port from Bristol, and on one occasion from Barnstaple, so the traffic was not all one way.[132] Similarly, small and regular quantities of the fish by-product trayne oil were received from Bristol, Barnstaple and the Cornish ports of Mountsbay and Plymouth.[133] If Milford did on occasion have a surplus of cod, it would have to be concluded that this was not always the case therefore.
Although larger than that recorded overseas, the outward coastal trade recorded in the coastal accounts was not especially significant. Herring along with hake were recorded arriving at Bristol from Milford aboard five ships in February 1504; a further two ships with very small cargoes made the journey in 1517; and a further two with one last of herring and ten c of hake in 1565/66.[134] Elsewhere in the Channel only two imports of fish from Milford were found: one at Bridgwater in 1561/62, and one at Gloucester in 1571.[135] However a consideration of the recording of trade in oysters suggests that the coastal accounts may not have described all of the coastal trade in fish as well as shellfish. Oysters appear in the coastal accounts only once: in March 1593 when 20,000 were shipped from Milford to Barnstaple.[136] Although this is the solitary example in the customs accounts, it was evidently far from being an unusual traffic. Owen is again forthcoming on the subject,
Nowe for shell fishe, this sea is allso noe niggard both for plentye and severall kindes. Emonge whome before all I will give place to the Oyster, which Mylford havon yeeldeth, most delicate and of severall sortes, and in great aboundance, and is a comoditie much uttered in manie shires, for by water they are transported to Bristoll, and to the Forest of Deane, from whence by lande they are sent to Somersetshire, Gloucestershire, and some partes of Wilteshire, and oftentimes vp the river as afarre as Worcester and Salop...[137]
Further evidence that there was a long established trade is confirmed by the Bridgwater certificate book previously described which dated from the reign of Henry VIII and lists two entries for 30,000 and for 50,000 oysters respectively ‘from Wales’ along with the Dovey herring.[138] The relevance of this to the fish trade is that the certificate book also listed one barrel of ‘Dovey’ herring, (presumably from the Dovey in the north of the port of Milford’s jurisdiction).[139] Although this was only one barrel recorded on one occasion it does nevertheless indicate that there may well have been a wider trade in fish from the port akin to that in oysters which were traded without a coastal certificate and so not usually recorded in the coastal port books. The evidence therefore suggests that the domestic trade in fish and shellfish from the port was substantial, and by the end of the century may even have been a principal branch of trade, but that only a small proportion of it was recorded in the coastal and overseas accounts.
Fruit
A similar unrecorded although substantial trade in fruit is revealed in the Haverfordwest borough accounts.[140] Between three and twelve boats were recorded bringing between 22 and 160 tons of apples annually to Haverfordwest from 1586, and Owen writes of the ‘the aple men of the Forest who come hither yerely with many barckes laden with Aples and peares, sell the same here at their pleasure, which carieth away as much money as the dredgers of Myllford receave for their oisters’.[141] In common with other ports studied large volumes of more exotic dried fruit were imported on a regular basis. Apart from one exception in 1586 however, these shipments were all received coastally, principally from Bristol.[142]
It is surprising to find that Milford was apparently so dependent on the coastal trade emanating from Bristol for trayne oil and dried fruits. These products were associated with trade to Iberia and the far Atlantic, and the absence of direct inward traffic suggests that Milford’s merchants and ships were not as developed as those found elsewhere in the Bristol Channel. At Barnstaple, similarly situated but on the opposing shore of the Channel, the opposite situation prevailed. There was no inward coastal traffic for these products, but a frequent outbound coastal trade with dried fruit that had arrived in directly from overseas, and usually on Barnstable ships. This reflected the fact that by the end of the century Barnstaple’s merchants and fleet had become established as significant players in the developing wider oceanic trade. With the exception of the bark Perote mentioned above, the port books seem to suggest that Milford’s trade remained much more regionally focussed.
Wine
Although ‘particular’ Exchequer accounts were not compiled in the port prior to 1559, some earlier information relating to wine imports is available from the Ministers’ accounts which were summarised by E.A. Lewis. The earliest of these are records of a tax on wine payable only by alien merchants, known as butlerage, which run through to 1544.[143] These more restricted records are not directly comparable to the later port books therefore, but the information which they contain is nonetheless valuable as it reveals a large number of Portuguese ships trafficking wine and other commodities to the port until the 1560s. In 1516/17 for instance in excess of 147 tuns was imported aboard the James, the Mary, the Sancte Spyrite and the Sancta Maria all from Aveiro into Tenby; and the Petur, the John, the Margarete, and the Michel also all from Aveiro into Haverfordwest.[144] In 1543/44 a further three ships from Aveiro and another Portuguese ship were again recorded inbound at Tenby with 106 tuns; and in June 1558 three Aveiro ships were recorded into Tenby and one to Milford.[145] These and other ships recorded from Portugal represent an exceptionally strong trading link in this direction. A combined total of only ten entries for ships from Aveiro were found in all of the customs accounts sampled for all of the other ports in the Bristol Channel (including Bristol) during the whole of the century.[146] This traffic into Milford persisted until 1566. After this date, although some trade with Portugal continued until the end of the century, no Portuguese ships, nor any Portuguese merchants were recorded in the Exchequer accounts. The sudden halt to a long established pattern of trade may perhaps be attributed to disruptions caused by disputes over rights to trade in west Africa, which resulted in a series of mutual seizures of English and Portuguese ships by their respective governments.[147] Alternatively it may have been triggered by the introduction of customs rates on alien merchants in line with those pertaining in England. A warrant issued in 1565 ordered that from Easter 1566 ‘you charge in theaccomptes of the Customers of the said porte and Creekes for the Custome of all straungers goodes to be brought into or carried furth of the same according to such rates as in case lieke is used in England’.[148]
The Ministers’ accounts compiled by Lewis additionally provide some figures relating to wine imports which supplement those described in the later series of Exchequer port books.[149] It is apparent from Figure 6.2 that there are discrepancies in the volumes recorded between the Ministers’ accounts and port books, and it should be borne in mind that these are fiscal records of tax revenues rather than calendars of actual commercial events. Despite discrepancies however, the figures are of a comparable order of magnitude, and whilst they do not necessarily match in the particular years for which both sources survive, the Ministers’ accounts do provide some corroboration of the port book figures, and provide data for years in which the port books do not survive.
Figure 6.2 Port of Milford: imports of wine (tuns). [150]
The volumes recorded in both sources seem to have been unaffected by changes to the method of levying customs introduced in 1559, and by the 1565 warrant which confirmed that tonnage was to be levied in the port. The success of this may be partly attributed to the decision taken by the Crown to exempt Wales from the new impost on French wine which had been introduced in England,
...in consideracion of the longe and damgerous traveile of such as bringe wynes into those parties and of theise newe paymente of subsidie of Tonnage and Pondage it hath not hitherunto bene nor yet is thought convenient to chardge any parte of the newe impost as in thother partes of England lest by overburdeninge of the marchauntes there the Quene shoulde be greatilie hindred of her subsidie the Countrey should be utterlie destitute of wines which were greatlie to their hindraunce by reason of the greate scarcetie of mault there.[151]
The figures in Figure 6.2 suggest that the Crown was initially largely successful in its strategy of maximising revenue by not overburdening the affected merchants. This contrasts sharply to the situation at Bristol where wine imports fell by an average of 58 percent between 1559 and 1569 following the introduction of the impost.[152] Indeed the sharp and sustained rise in imports described in Figure 6.2 may even indicate that wine was consequently routed into Milford rather than other ports where the impost would have been due. There is no indication from the coastal accounts of a corresponding rise in outward shipments of wine from the port to other domestic destinations, but there would have been no advantage to be gained in making such shipments legally as the impost would have fallen due once they reached England. Any such shipments may therefore have been freighted illegally to England in small consignments as appeared to have been the case from the port of Cardiff. A further incentive for merchants to import wine via Milford would have been the de facto suspension of the duties of butlerage and prisage on wine in the port from 1565.[153] A customs officer at Tenby attested in 1577 that he ‘knowth of prisage and buttlerage but none suche executed’, and the Customer himself said that ‘touchinge the office of prisage and butlerage for the execution of the same in due order he knoweth non used excersised byany maner of person or persons’.[154] It would therefore have served merchants to import wine in large ships to Milford and then break bulk and tranship into smaller vessels which could operate across the Channel so avoiding the prisage which would have been due in England.
The profile of ships and merchants recorded importing wine into Milford is incongruous when compared to English ports in the Bristol Channel in that the customs accounts list only petty coastal traders, or large shipments imported by occasional merchants with no local connections. There was no individual merchant or group of merchants who had a commanding market share. This contrasts to the English Bristol Channel ports where a small group of wealthy merchants, usually those who held high civic offices, were seen to have gained an increasingly large market share. There were only two instances found of local ships importing wine directly from overseas, both of which occurred in 1599 when the Phoenix brought three tuns from La Rochelle to Tenby, and the Mathew brought two tuns to Milford.[155] These were hardly significant amounts therefore. Milford is also notable in the Exchequer records for a number of Scottish and Irish ships freighting wine compared to other Bristol Channel ports. Three Scottish ships imported 64 tuns of wine in 1564, and in 1598/99 six ships from Wexford and Waterford imported just over eleven tuns. Whilst this is a reflection of Milford’s geographical position, located close to Ireland and on the sea route to the north, it could be interpreted as reflecting a relative commercial weakness on the part of the port’s merchants and mariners who the port books show do not appear to have conducted this trade themselves. The largest single cargo recorded in the accounts sampled was 35 tuns, which was freighted aboard a Scottish ship by Thomas Forrest, an alien merchant in 1563/64.[156] This represented slightly less than a third of all wine declared in the accounts in that year, but this particular merchant did not appear subsequently. The situation was very similar in 1571/72 when a French vessel arrived at Carmarthen with 32 tuns representing just over one third of that year’s declared imports, but the merchant responsible, Peter Brevell from Le Conquet, was not recorded again.[157]Coastwise shipments of wine into the port were recorded fairly frequently, but wine was never the main item of cargo in these coastal vessels, with the average shipment amounting to slightly over one tun. The Exchequer accounts therefore indicate that the involvement of Milford’s merchants and ships in the wine trade was minimal.
The Exchequer accounts may present a misleading picture in this respect however. The volumes of wine imported from 1572 through to 1599/1600 do seem extraordinarily low given the size of the port’s constituent towns and the volumes recorded earlier in the century. In contrast to the one to two hundred tuns recorded annually in the first half of the century the Exchequer accounts do not record volumes of greater than 24 tuns after 1573/74 until the final year of the century. For comparison, despite the commercial difficulties posed by war with Spain in the later century, Bridgwater imported 123 tuns in 1583/84 and 69 tuns in 1596/98, whilst Barnstaple imported 53 tuns in 1595/96. Wine was one of the most important and valuable commodities imported into all ports of the Bristol Channel, including Bristol, during this period and it is difficult to believe that the wine trade to Milford did not involve greater volumes and prominent local figures and merchants in the way in which the customs accounts seem to indicate. In view of the very low volumes of wine recorded in the customs and Ministers’ accounts in the last quarter of the century, and the close relationship between the customs officers and the local political and merchant elite, it seems likely that a significant part of Milford’s wine imports were simply not entered for customs. They may even have been imported under the exemption of provision on the grounds that they were for consumption by the large households and retinues of Sir John Perot and the Deveruex families, rather than for trading by way of merchandise.[158] Again therefore by the end of the century the customs accounts may have under represented this branch of trade by a significant margin.
Salt
The greater part of the trade from Portugal was in salt rather than wine, and Milford was found to be unusual amongst Bristol Channel ports in the large quantities of salt which it imported from this source. Three hundred and fifteen tons were imported from Portugal in 1500/01, 203 tons in 1516/17, 325 tons in 1517/18, and 154 tons in 1543/44.[159] In contrast no other Bristol Channel port was found to have imported more than 80 tons in any one year from Portugal.[160] The Ministers’ accounts indicate that in excess of 90 percent of salt shipped to the port by foreign merchants was sourced from Portugal rather than France in the period from 1516 to 1518.[161] Origin of shipments was not recorded in the Exchequer overseas accounts for this period so no comparable figure can be given for English ports. In 1565/66 however the port books indicate that Milford received 58 percent of its salt imports from Portugal compared to fourteen percent recorded in the nearest comparable fiscal period for Barnstaple and Ilfracombe.[162]
The overall volumes of salt imports remained robust throughout the century with 428 tons recorded in 1559/60, 261 tons in 1563/64 and 386 tons in 1598/99. By the end of the century however the later Exchequer accounts indicate that imports of salt from France, particularly from La Rochelle, had largely replaced those from Portugal. In 1598/99 Portuguese sourced imports of salt had fallen to 25 percent of the overall total for this commodity. As with imports of wine, ships from outside the port carried the vast bulk of the overseas import trade recorded in the Exchequer accounts after 1559, with only sixteen percent freighted aboard ships recorded with a local home port. The majority of trade described in customs was freighted aboard ships from outside the port therefore, confirming the observations already made about the apparent profile of Milford’s fleet and merchants.
The profile of Milford’s salt trade accorded more closely with that of Barnstaple than with Bridgwater where they were seen to have fallen substantially over the century. At Barnstaple imports of salt rose, and it was suggested that this increase may have been the result of increased demand from the expanding fish processing industries both in north Devon and in Newfoundland. Given the very extensive expansion in the fish catch outlined by George Owen, and the involvement of at least one of Milford’s ships in the Atlantic fish trade, a similar development may have occurred at Milford.
Iron
The scope of Milford’s recorded trade in iron was relatively restricted. Table 6.5 indicates that iron was almost entirely sourced indirectly via the coastal trade, rather than by direct overseas import. Bristol was the main source of this coastal trade followed by Barnstaple.
Table 6.5 Port of Milford: imports and inbound coastal shipments of iron (tons).
|
|
Overseas |
Coastal |
|
1559/60 |
O |
- |
|
1565/66 |
- |
91 |
|
1585/86 |
2 |
46 |
|
1592/93 |
- |
19 |
|
1598/99 |
18 |
- |
Bristol also shipped lead, pewter, tin, brass, and on one occasion steel, to Milford.[163] Amongst the worked items listed were pins, wire, board and lathe nails, brass and pewter pots, and spurs. Brass pans were recorded inbound from Dartmouth, and horse shoes and worked tin from Barnstaple.[164] There was however also an outbound trade in some of these products. Brass and pewter were shipped to Barnstaple and Bristol in 1560, 1566, 1586 and 1593.[165] This regular trade suggests an established craft such as that found at Carmarthen where a company of hammer men was incorporated in 1569.[166]
As with coastal shipments of wine, iron formed a small part of many inward mixed cargoes, and as a consequence no one merchant had a significant market share or was particularly associated with trade in this product. For instance thirteen merchants accounted for the 45 tons shipped into Carmarthen in 1565/66, or eight for the seventeen tons shipped into the Milford Haven ports in 1585/86. There is less reason for scepticism in interpretation of the information in the Exchequer accounts in relation to inbound shipments of iron compared to other commodities. Overseas iron imports were seen to have fallen dramatically in other Bristol Channel ports towards the end of the century, and these were largely replaced with domestic production shipped coastwise. The trade described here therefore accords with the wider end of century pattern of trade.
Cloth and Wool
Milford shared some of the characteristics of the Irish economy in the decline and eventual eclipse of its once thriving woollen cloth manufacture.[167] The decline is well documented. In 1557 the concerns of the Mayor and town council at Haverfordwest were expressed in ordinance issued to revive the industry,
Before this time the making of friezes and 'fullclothes' within the town has been not only a great commodity to the common wealth of the town but also the inhabitants in times past have had their living thereby which now is utterly almost decayed. The cause of the decay is that burgesses and imhabitants convey and sell wool and woolen yarn out of the town to strangers and foreigners. For remedy therof it is ordered that no burgesses or inhabitants shall sell or convey out of the town to any stranger or foreigner any kind of wool or wollen yarn except it be first made in cloth.[168]
George Owen’s end of century observation on the wool trade confirmed that this particular ordnance had been ineffective: twice the amount of wool was produced in Pembrokeshire as forty years ago, he wrote, but then ‘all occupied and wrought within the sheere, and sold in frises and now all sold unwrought’; great ‘want and inconvenience’ had resulted from ‘the not workinge of our owne countrye wooll by our owne people, but sell the same unwrought to other countries..’.[169] By 1607 the Privy Council was informed that ‘the decay of the said town of Tenby as of other towns in these parts hath chiefly grown by loss and discontinuance of the trade of clothing’.[170] The coastal accounts chart this decline: in 1565/66 there were 34 instances of frieze recorded outbound; nineteen in 1585/85; and just seven in 1592/93. Trying to determine this decrease in volume terms is a necessarily inaccurate exercise as in practice the cloths were unlikely to have been produced to a standard size. Moreover they were recorded by the piece, pack, fardel and yard. An approximate measure based on 30 yards to the piece, and ten pieces to a pack, with five allowed for a fardel, would suggest a decline of over 80 percent in the volumes shipped from 1565/66 to 1592/93.[171] The underlying cause of the decline is widely recognised to have been due to falling demand for this type of cloth as a result of new more attractive products being introduced.[172]
Milford was not alone in experiencing these challenging
market conditions, and the response of Barnstaple and its Devonian hinterland
has already been described. The response of Milford’s merchants took a
different path. As Figure 6.3 shows, merchants increasingly fell back to
shipping out wool: 1,057 stones were recorded outbound in the 1565/66 coastal
accounts; 6,170 in 1585/86; and 8,130 in 1592/93. As indicated above Owen
estimated that sheep flocks had doubled to meet this demand and he detailed how
‘the lower part of the shire ven and sell their wool to Bristowe men, Barstable
and Somersetsheere which comm twise every yeare to the countye to buy the
wooll’.[173]
The port books bear out that Bristol accounted for 56 percent of the volume
shipped out, followed by Minehead with the nearby Dunster receiving 36 percent,
and Barnstaple and other north Devon ports seven percent. June and October were
the peak months for this traffic, but activity was by no means confined only to
this period. There is however an anomaly
in the coastal accounts in respect to the wool trade. Of the sixteen ships recorded outbound
freighting wool from Milford to Bristol in 1592/93 only eleven were
subsequently recorded inbound in the Bristol coastal account.[174]
Whilst 4,540 stones of wool were despatched from Milford, only 2,800 stones
were recorded as received at Bristol. There are no indications that this was
being freighted overseas under colour of a coastal cocket, or that it was being
shipped elsewhere domestically. The implications of this and other
discrepancies will be considered in the final chapter.
In one sense the increasing reliance of the local economy on
the export of a primary product, whilst experiencing a decline in the export of
a value-added secondary product, can be seen to be economically regressive. On
the other hand however, it can be interpreted as an opportunistic exploitation
of new market opportunities. Although demand for locally produced cloth was
declining, locally produced sheep had a number of advantages. Their wool was
coarser and had a longer staple than that of many breeds of English sheep, and
was therefore particularly suitable for carding and in the manufacture of new
types of cloth.[175]
Moreover, as Owen argued, sheep ‘yealdeth great profitt with litle chardge: for
in this countrie they feede not their sheepe with haye in winter as is used in
divers partes of England, but let them gett their livinge out them selfes...
for fodder they never bestowe on them, for in this countrie the snowe never
coverth the grounde for any longe tyme and therefore they are sure alwayes of
feedinge’.[176]
Coal
In the 1530s Leland had noted that Pembrokeshire ‘is sumwhat baren of wood’, and in the later century a national shortage of timber began to be acutely felt, with Pembrokeshire reported as one of the shires most affected.[177] This shortage was reflected in the imports of wood, planks and boards from Ireland to Milford and Tenby, and from Bristol to Carmarthen in the accounts sampled from 1563 onwards. Owen described how sea coal was traded from the south of the county to Ireland and France, and that in view of its increasing price, there was some resistance to this trade from ‘the countrie people’ who feared that it might run out.[178] Mining of coal was not a new phenomenon however and had been noted by Leland around Llanelli and Carmarthen in the 1530s. Leland had drawn a distinction between stone coal near Kidwelly and ring coal near Llanelli.[179] The customs accounts list ring coal, run coal, great coal, stone coal, small coal, coal, and culm. Ring and run coal were bitumous types which were suitable for use by smiths.[180] Their disadvantage for domestic use was that they tended to clump when burned, or as Owen described it ‘melteth and runneth as wax and groweth into one clod‘.[181] The coal from the west of the port was anthracite, which was superior for domestic use as it ‘burneth apart and never clingeth together,’ and ‘beinge once kindled geaveth a greater heate than light, and deliteth to burn in darke places’.[182] Culm was valued at one sixth the price of coal by Owen and described by him as ‘in deed but vearie dust which serveth for lyme burninge’.[183]
The quantities which were declared of these various grades of coal were never as considerable as those from Swansea and Neath in the port of Cardiff. There was however a trade of some significance which shows some interesting regional variations.
Table 6.6 Port of Milford: exports of coal (tons).[184]
|
|
Burry |
Carmarthen |
Tenby |
Milford Haven
ports |
Port of Milford |
|
1559/60 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
226 |
|
1563/64 |
- |
16 |
- |
29 |
- |
|
1566/67 |
- |
103 |
- |
180 |
- |
|
1571/72 |
6 |
15 |
- |
- |
- |
|
1585/86 |
5 |
42 |
10 |
504 |
- |
|
1598/99 |
74 |
144 |
21 |
619 |
- |
Table 6.6 charts a clear upward trend with greater exports from Milford than Carmarthen, and very low levels of overseas exports from the coal producing regions around Burry until the end of the century. The latter can perhaps be explained by this being the location of the coal mines owned by Customer Vaughan who it was claimed gave license to all boats under twelve tons ‘to bee free from painge anie custome for cocket and from painge of any entrie’; ‘many small boates reported to lade cole by reson of the libertie aforesaid and their boughte of the said Vaughan their laddinge of cole free from painge of custome either for cocket or entrie to the greate gaine of the said Vaughan and the greate inconvenience and discommoditie of the Queen’s majeste’.[185] It will be remembered that Vaughan ceased to hold the office of customer in 1596, and the low levels recorded in the customs accounts prior to this date, which contrasted to contemporary descriptions of this region, indicate that this allegation must have been substantially true. The claim that Vaughan allowed vessels which were specifically under twelve tons to proceed without entry in customs, rather than all ships, suggests that an exemption may have been in place in the port which was analogous to that in the port of Cardiff where trows passing to Bridgwater were found to be allowed to pass without lodging a bond or being subject to coastal customs control.
The earliest available Exchequer accounts show the export of 226 tons from the port of Milford in 1559/60, and whilst the destination is not given, the home port of the ships indicates that this was bound overwhelmingly for Wexford. Subsequent accounts usually detail the destination and confirm that almost all of shipments from ports within the Haven were bound for Ireland: of 74 ships listed with a destination in the accounts sampled in Table 6.6, only one was recorded bound elsewhere. By contrast Carmarthen’s trade showed only one ship bound for Ireland, with the rest recorded outward to France. Burry and Tenby had a similar profile to Carmarthen, although with far less volume as indicated in Table 6.6. As such the ports of Burry, Carmarthen and Tenby had a focus of trade which was more similar to that of Swansea and Neath than that of those within Milford Haven. This relationship is represented graphically in Figure 6.4.
Figure 6.4 Ports of Cardiff and Milford: overseas exports of coal by destination (%)
The difference is striking and is partly explained with reference to the different types of coal described above. Figure 6.5 shows that 65 percent of the volume freighted to Ireland from ports within Milford Haven comprised culm, and that Tenby, which was the second largest exporter to Ireland, was also the second largest shipper of culm.
Figure 6.5 Ports of Cardiff and Milford: exports of coal by port and type (%)
Table 6.5 also corroborates Leland’s description of the different types of coal found around Burry and Llanelli.
The trade recorded in the coastal accounts was a great deal smaller than that in their overseas counterparts. In 1565/66 just one shipment was declared, which was of only two tons shipped from Llanelli to Bideford.[186] In 1585/86 the figure was substantially higher at 118 tons but this included an exceptional shipment of 62 tons to London.[187] Other destinations that year were to Dartmouth and Plymouth. In 1592/93 a solitary shipment was again made - of four tons from Carmarthen to Fowey.[188] Apart from one small cargo to Bideford there was a complete absence of recorded trade within the Bristol Channel.[189] The customs accounts indicate that Milford was unusual amongst the Bristol Channel ports for its apparent reliance on coastal trade which formed the main conduit for both the import and export of a range of basic commodities. The trade in coal was an exception to this pattern however, and was one in which overseas exports almost wholly eclipsed the coastal trade.
The question arises therefore as to whether the coastal accounts fully describe this trade from the port of Milford, not only because Milford apparently shipped virtually no coal coastally within the Bristol Channel, but also as it was previously shown that Cardiff had a much greater cross channel trade than is apparent from the Exchequer accounts. Whilst Bristol Channel ports located closer to the coalfields of Cardiff and Bristol may have had no need of coal from Milford, it is difficult to believe the same of Barnstaple and Ilfracombe. Both of these ports enjoyed close trading relations with Milford’s ports, and had no inland coalfields to supply them, but did not record the import of any coal at all in their customs returns. A note in the Barnstaple town clerk’s ledger in 1596 indicates that the town was nevertheless supplied with Welsh coal.[190] The existence of trade in this direction is also confirmed by incidental information made in the submissions to the Exchequer enquiry concerning John Vaughan’s malfeasances of the customership, which indicates that coal was freighted to Barnstaple as well as to Bristol despite the lack of evidence for this in the coastal accounts.[191] The likelihood would seem to be therefore, that as was the case in the port of Cardiff, a substantial part of domestic trade in coal from the port to destinations within the Bristol Channel may not have been recorded in the coastal accounts but was instead been sent under let pass or provision exemption, perhaps on the grounds that it was being despatched in small vessels that were not considered likely to attempt an overseas voyage.
As with the trade in the port of Cardiff, the marketing of coal seems to have been a fractured and diverse affair with no dominance of the sector by any particular merchant or merchant grouping. Ships from Milford Haven accounted for the freighting of over half of the coal and culm shipments from there to Ireland, with Wexford vessels accounting for a further quarter of the trade. This market share was reasonably consistently maintained, but at Carmarthen a much more volatile picture emerges. Ships with a Carmarthen home port freighted half of all overseas coal exports in 1563/64, but none at all in 1571/72, and over 90 percent in 1598/99. Around half of the trade was shipped aboard ships with a French home port in 1563/64 and 1571/72, but ships from London and Orkney accounted for 75 percent of the trade in 1585/86. In the light of this it is unsurprising to find that no one merchant or group of merchants was represented on a continual basis in the coal trade from Carmarthen. The situation in Milford Haven was not dissimilar despite the frequency and regularity of shipments from there to south eastern Ireland. The largest market share in any one year was 28 percent in 1563/64 held by Thomas Nicholas, but this represented one relatively large shipment and he was not recorded two years later in 1565/66. William Harris was the largest shipper in both 1585/86 and 1598/99 but even so his market share was not above ten percent. It seems likely that the real major figures in this trade are hidden behind the statistics in the port books, and were at one remove from the trade recorded there. Men such as customer Vaughan, reputed owner of coal mines, who shipped coal on his own account but also sold it to the petty traders listed in the port books.
The trading connections between Milford and Ireland are significant, as this was the one port studied in which trade with Ireland increased rather than decreased in the later century. Table 6.7 expresses this by the number of shipping movements recorded both outbound and inbound.
Table 6.7 Shipping movements to and from Ireland: comparison of ports.[192]
|
Bridgwater |
North Devon |
Gloucester |
Cardiff |
Milford |
|
|
1566/67 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
37 |
|
1576/77 |
- |
6 |
- |
- |
- |
|
1579/80 |
- |
9 |
- |
0 |
- |
|
1581/82 |
- |
1 |
17 |
- |
- |
|
1583/84 |
15 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
|
1585/86 |
11 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
|
1586/87 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
44 |
|
1592/93 |
- |
- |
11 |
- |
- |
|
1594/95 |
- |
- |
- |
0 |
- |
|
1595/96 |
- |
4 |
- |
- |
- |
|
1597/98 |
8 |
1 |
1 |
- |
- |
|
1598/99 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
85 |
In one sense it is quite surprising to find that there was much trade at all between Milford and Ireland. Although both were geographically close, they were also economically very similar in the range of commodities which they produced. Apart from coal and wood, there would seem to have been little to have been gained from exchange. Both were producers of coarse, woollen cloth, and both experienced a decline in this trade with England; both were pastorally based economies exporting a range of animal skins and wool; and both bordered rich fishing grounds which they were well placed to exploit. Neither produced luxury products, and neither had heavy industries of the type found elsewhere in south Wales. The recorded outward flow of goods to Ireland was comprised almost entirely of culm or coal, with the occasional shipment of foodstuff for provision of the English army. The inward flow however covered a diverse range of products including Irish cloth, tallow, flocks, hoops staves, poles, oar blades, lathes, hides and leather, and fish. There were also instances of the arrival of goods from Ireland to Milford which were sourced from outside Ireland, including wine, salt, and pitch. The quantities were not great however: for instance in 1585/86 eight tons of salt arrived aboard two ships; and in 1598/99 just over eleven tuns of wine arrived in four ships. To a limited extent nonetheless, trade from Ireland supplemented that which was being received coastally from Bristol, and directly from overseas in these commodities. In the light of the overwhelming instances of coal and culm shipped from the port to Ireland, it has to be concluded however, that the driver of this increase in end of century trade between Milford and Ireland was demand in Ireland for coal and culm, rather than demand in Milford for Irish goods.
This explanation alone is not sufficient to account for this relationship however, as little or no trade with Ireland was found between the coal producing port towns in the east of the port, nor with the port towns under the jurisdiction of Cardiff. The particularly strong political connections between Milford and Ireland may also therefore go some way to explaining this relationship. Sir John Perrot had extensive land holdings in Pembrokeshire and Munster which perhaps account for some degree of exchange and interaction between the two places. Perhaps more significantly there were large established Irish communities in south west Wales. As early as c.1528 a letter from Carmarthen to Wolsey had complained about the number of Irishmen coming into the area, and George Owen recounted how some parishes were entirely populated with Irish, and believed that in the near future they might outnumber the other inhabitants.[193] There would therefore have been plenty of cross Irish Sea social and familial links which help to explain the pattern of trade.
The social nature of these links between Milford and Ireland, the frequent traffic between the two places, and the physical geography of the port with its many coves and inlets, make it questionable how fully trade between the two places was reflected in the customs accounts. Dr. Phaer’s observation of the level of smuggling of money and corn to Ireland has already been noted. That there was some concealment later in the century is revealed by the record of the under searcher at Tenby who enthusiastically harried Vaughan’s trade in this respect. On one occasion he seized Vaughan’s ship, The Grace of God, with 54 yards of Irish linen cloth, and on another occasion was party to the seizure of 94 yards of frieze and thirteen mantles as well as a number of hides in a Wexford ship.[194]
Conclusion
A straightforward reading of the port books indicates that the focus of Milford’s trade was relatively parochial compared to other ports in the region. The Exchequer accounts suggest that Milford was reliant on coastal trade to an unusual extent compared to other ports within the Channel. Much of its commercial activity was routed through Bristol, and to a lesser extent through Barnstaple. It is not easy to quantify this in total terms as many items in the coastal accounts cannot be valued. As an indication however, in 1585/86 Ł10 worth of frieze was recorded in the overseas accounts compared to Ł1,890 in the coastal accounts; or Ł8 of iron in the overseas accounts compared to Ł190 in the coastal accounts; or Ł40 of salt from overseas compared to Ł65 coastally. The merchant marine of Carmarthen and Milford described in the customs accounts also reflected this focus on short distance trading with only one vessel with a Milford home port recorded sailing further than northern France, and the presence of many, larger ships from outside the port authority. This is also reflected in the size of the local fleet. The largest ship in the overseas accounts was the 80 ton Gifte of Tenby, but this was exceptional, with the average tonnage of Milford’s ships being just eighteen tons. Milford was therefore apparently more dependent on the metropolitan centre of Bristol than other regions in the Bristol Channel. The port’s geographical position in the far west, with a long land journey to more major markets perhaps explains the prevalence of items of grocery ware, haberdashers ware, and consumer goods found in its coastal accounts when compared to other ports studied. In this respect Milford can be seen to have been in an analogous situation to Ireland, exporting basic primary goods to Bristol, and importing a range of secondary consumer items. These included cups, cupboards, bedsteads, stools, glasses, earthenware jugs, treen items, wheelbarrows, lanterns, playing cards and more generally ‘diverse goods, ‘household stuff’ and ‘dry ware’. It was not that these and similar goods were not apparent in the wider coastal trade of the Bristol Channel, but the frequency of them in the Milford port books is exceptional.
The corollary of the prevalence of coastal trade is that the port books indicate that Milford’s overseas trade was less developed than that of other Bristol Channel ports, particularly Barnstaple. Whilst the merchants of Barnstaple, and to a lesser extent Bridgwater, were seen to have expanded their commercial horizons, and engaged in more far reaching trade across the Atlantic, the scope of Milford’s trade seems to have diminished according to the data in these documents. The substitution of coastal traffic for direct overseas trade is a distinctive feature of Milford’s recorded maritime commerce across the century. The large cargoes of wine and salt recorded in the Ministers’ accounts aboard Portuguese ships in 1500/01, 1517/18 and 1559/60 were not replaced with similar shipments aboard indigenous vessels, but with smaller and more frequent coastal voyages, or with similarly composed manifests from closer ports in Ireland or northern France. The dependence of Milford on Bristol for supplies of iron, dried fruits, trayne oil, and consumer goods, as well as its importance as a market for wool, indicates that this relationship was important.
Yet evidence presented in this chapter suggests that the picture described in the port books is incomplete, and that the relationship with Bristol rather than being the mainstay of the port’s trade was just one aspect of it. Consideration of contemporary descriptions of trade, the evidence presented in Exchequer commissions of enquiry, and of the local political context, suggests rather that the customs officers were busy recording coastal traffic which did not incur duty, whilst levying customs only on petty traders or those with no local connections. There is a substantial body of evidence pointing to an extensive illicit export trade in grain, butter, cheese and leather from the port which seems certain to have been many times higher than the port books indicate. Similarly, it is reasonable to suppose that licit domestic shipments of fish, shellfish and coal were greater than is apparent from a reading of the coastal accounts.
The Exchequer accounts were seen to provide a particularly poor guide to true levels of trade in the port of Milford as it appears that there was an effective indemnity from customs for local magnates, and to some degree for those merchants who were connected with them. It is notable for instance that the only occasion on which the bark Perote was entered in customs in the accounts sampled was when it arrived with Atlantic cod entered under the names of Sir John Wogan and David Perrot - a cargo which was in any case exempt from paying duty.[195] Similarly Robert Longhor, ‘doctor at law’, Erasmus Saunders Esquire and Rice Barret ‘gent’ amongst others listed as the principal owners and merchants associated with the 120 tons Garyethe were all absent from the customs accounts, but must have been prominent local figures and merchants of some standing.[196] The port books show that overseas trade through the port fell from a total value for customs purposes of Ł1,881 in 1563/64 to Ł463 in 1598/99, and that ships and merchants from the port played only a minor role in key branches of overseas trade. Yet other evidence suggests that trade might actually have increased in the last decades of the century, and that local merchants were not bystanders in this process.
The extent of the gulf which this chapter has argued consequently existed between the level of trade recorded in the port books and that which actually occurred is summed up by two contrasting contemporary descriptions of the port’s trade. George Owen characterised it as one which ‘especiallye of late years is fallen much to trade to sea’. [197] Thomas Middleton however, who was seeking the approval of Lord Burghley to appoint his brother to the post of controller on the death of Vaughan, characterised it as ‘the poorest place in England, not worth 10s. besides the poor fee’.[198] Middleton’s rationale was surely akin to that of the Bridgwater burgesses who stressed that the trade of Bridgwater had declined greatly when they petitioned for the post of searcher at their port. His application to Burghley must be read in the context of a desire to secure the post with as little outlay as possible and a need to justify the low returns which were submitted to the Exchequer, rather than being an accurate reflection of the commercial reality.
In common with some other Bristol Channel ports there was found to be a degree of commercial and political rivalry between different port towns within the jurisdiction of the port. Different trading patterns were discernable between the Carmarthen and Pembrokeshire parts of the port. Carmarthen enjoyed much closer trading relations with Gloucester and northern France than the Pembrokeshire ports, which in turn were more focussed on trade with Barnstaple, Ireland, and in the earlier part of the period Portugal. There was found to be a political tension between Carmarthen and Tenby which is comparable to that which was found between Bristol and Gloucester, or Gloucester and Tewksbury. Like those places commercial rivalry was inextricably linked to a political rivalry which focussed on the offices of the Exchequer customs.
Similarly, in common with other Bristol Channel ports there was seen to be political tension between regional and metropolitan centres of power over the control of customs revenues. In the port of Cardiff this was found to be an area of conflict which in many ways remained unresolved. The Crown had asserted its authority, and the amalgamation of customs control was theoretically in place, although in practice evasion of duty was seen to have been widespread and greater than in English ports. In Milford however, which had enjoyed longer and closer relations with the Tudor regime, it was a conflict which had been largely resolved, and was one in which the regional interests may be said to have decisively won. There was no local centre of authority which could challenge a figure as mighty as Sir John Perrot, or undermine the extensive nexus of commercial and political relationships established and maintained by customer John Vaughan. The effectiveness of central Exchequer control in Milford was thus arguably lower than in any other port of the Bristol Channel.
Those who take national Exchequer figures as a guide to levels of trade in the port during this period risk being seriously misled therefore. Historians who have written about the port’s trade are not necessarily incorrect in their descriptions of maritime commercial activities based on the port books, since these are at least a partial description of trade. [199] But on the other hand neither can they be said be entirely correct in their assessments since these sources are not a complete record of trade, and it is also necessary to take account of what seems to have been a much greater volume of both illicit, and licit but unrecorded trade. The exception to the majority of historians who have charted the port’s trade is Brian Howells who recognised the limitations of the port books and acknowledged that ‘it is clear that through smuggling and the corruption of customs officials many cargoes were never listed’.[200] However, since he was writing about only Pembrokeshire, Howells was not in a position to make a judgement about the comparative extent of these omissions and was perhaps therefore unable to appreciate how great their extent may have been when set in a wider context. Such an evaluation is clearly critical if any wider study of trade in the period is to be attempted, and the evidence presented here suggests that the extent of Milford’s export trade has been considerably underestimated.
Carmarthen and Haverfordwest were not small places. Contemporary descriptions of the towns and their maritime trade, and the considerable quantities of consumer items arriving into these ports suggest that they were also wealthy places. The geographical position of Pembrokeshire and Carmarthenshire, with good harbours and easy sea communication, but with difficult and long land journeys to English markets, also suggests that marine based trade must have been the principal means of commercial exchange. It is unlikely that this prosperity can have been based mainly on the shipping of culm to Ireland, and of wool to Bristol in the way in which the port books indicate.
The multi-sourced approach adopted in this study of Milford has therefore underlined the findings of earlier chapters: that the Exchequer accounts appear to under-represent overseas trade to a greater extent in minor ports than in relatively well policed, larger ports such as Bristol; that coastal trade was much more extensive than is apparent from a reading of the coastal accounts; and that bilateral trading relationships were prevalent throughout the region. It has also determined that patronage and power were critical elements in both the operation of customs control and in the merchant activities which they nominally policed.