The Maritime Trade of the Smaller Bristol Channel Ports in the Sixteenth Century
Introduction :: Port of Bridgwater :: Port of Gloucester :: Port of Cardiff :: Port of Milford :: Conclusion :: Appendices :: Bibliography
Chapter Two : The North Devon Ports of Barnstaple and Ilfracombe.
This chapter will seek to establish that the profile of the trade of the north Devon ports, and in particular that of Barnstaple, was significantly different to that of Bristol, and that this difference became more pronounced as the century progressed. Although Barnstaple, like Bristol, experienced a broadening of its commercial horizons, it also developed illicit channels of trade which appear to have exceeded in proportionate terms similar activities at Bristol. Consequently the overseas Exchequer accounts, which describe only legal trade, are a misleading guide for comparative purposes.
The north coast of Devon was divided into two member ports for customs purposes, both of which were subordinate to the head port of Exeter. The port of Barnstaple was the larger of the two accounting for sixteen percent of Devon’s recorded overseas trade in 1584, compared to 84 percent for ports in the south of the county. [1] Ilfracombe was considerably smaller, both in terms of trade and population, and comprised the harbour of Ilfracombe itself along with creeks at Combe Martin and Lynmouth.[2] The port of Barnstaple encompassed the adjacent harbours at Northam and Bideford which were sometimes, but not always, distinguished in the customs records.[3] In terms of population Barnstaple was a mid ranking port in the Bristol Channel with an estimated mid-century population of 2,000, and was a thriving port town which had invested heavily in extending and improving its quay in 1550, and had acquired borough status by 1565.[4]
In common with all the ports studied, Barnstaple’s overseas accounts are
punctuated by the arrival of expensive commodities such as aniseed, liquorice,
pepper and other spices, and dried fruits, particularly raisins. As well as
these consumer items, products used in the cloth industry were also frequently
imported: oil for processing wool; dyes such as woad, madder, orchil and
Brazilwood; soap for cleaning fleeces; and alum which was used as a mordant to
fix dyes as well as for bleaching leather.
Although these items were important and were profitable for those
trading in them, they were also smaller, infrequently shipped, and the
quantities imported could be erratic. The focus of this and subsequent chapters
will therefore largely rest with more basic commodities which were freighted
more frequently, in larger volumes, and are more indicative of underlying broad
trends of trade. It is principally by focussing on these that differences
between the ports will be made apparent.
Cloth
The maritime role of Barnstaple in the affairs of Elizabethan England has attracted much attention. Long associated with the likes of Sir Francis Drake and Sir Richard Grenville, the port and its mariners were at the forefront of westward mercantile and colonial expansion in the later sixteenth century. [5] In the earlier decades of the century however, Barnstaple’s prosperity was more prosaically founded on the export of locally manufactured woollen cloth. Along with the south Devon ports it acted as a conduit for the important cloth producing towns of South Molton and Tiverton, the latter ranked among the largest in England.[6] The port books show that it relied on this trade to an extraordinary degree, and that compared to other ports in the Bristol Channel its hinterland had a comparatively restricted economy. In the 1509/10 accounts for instance, cloth was the only commodity recorded outbound; in 1517/18 it comprised 95 percent of the value of recorded exports; in 1544/45 the figure was even higher at 99 percent, as it was again in 1565; in 1595/96 it still accounted for 86 percent of the port’s export trade.
Before 1565 these cargoes were almost all recorded as standard broadcloth or cloth of assize, or as variants of this such as ‘short white cloth’. Broadcloth type cloths formed the mainstay of cloth production on a national basis throughout the century, but substantial mid century changes in market conditions led to modifications in long established methods of production and distribution. There were several factors driving this: currency revaluations made exports more expensive for overseas buyers; war with France cut off England’s major overseas market at Antwerp which resulted in a mid century collapse in the cloth industry after many years of boom; and consumer demand changed gradually both in Europe and domestically, leading to a falling off in demand for heavy broadcloths and a slow rise in demand for lighter fabrics - the so called ‘new draperies’.[7] So far as the outports were concerned, a perhaps more significant factor was the increasing role played by London which took a growing share of the cloth trade so that by the mid century it handled over 90 percent of all exports.[8] At Bristol for instance, whereas around 7,000 cloths per annum had been exported at the end of the fifteenth century, only around 2,500 were exported by the 1540s and a few hundred at the end of the century.[9] These developments were to have a profound impact on the merchants and communities around the Bristol Channel which had formerly relied heavily on the production of broadcloths.
Table 2.1 expresses notional values of trade derived from customs data based on an index of 100 in 1517/18.[10]
Table 2.1 Port of Barnstaple: index of cloth exports.
|
Year |
Index |
|
1517/18 |
100 |
|
1543/44 |
166 |
|
1554/55 |
168 |
|
1570/71 |
130 |
|
1581/82 |
61 |
|
1595/96 |
118 |
It can be seen that cloth exports peaked in mid century as would be
expected. However in sharp contrast to cloth exports recorded from ports
elsewhere in the Bristol Channel, including Bristol itself, Barnstaple ended
the century exporting more not less cloth. By 1597/98 for instance the port of
Bridgwater exported just five percent on a like for like basis of the cloth
which it had shipped in 1506/7, a similar rate of decline to that at Bristol
described above.[11]
The resilience of Barnstaple’s cloth trade in the face of the later century commercial challenges can perhaps be attributed to the alacrity with which producers in the Devonian hinterland of the port adapted to changing market conditions. A distinctive type of cloth known as a Devonshire kersey had begun to be produced from the early sixteenth century and was recorded in the customs records from 1565, by which time it had supplanted standard type broadcloths to be the main type of cloth exported.[12] Kerseys were a finely spun, lighter cloth more in tune with the new demand, and were described by Youings as a precursor of the new draperies proper, the bays and says which came to predominate at the end of the century.[13] Youings also noted that Barnstaple was one of the first ports to recover from the mid century commercial crisis, and it has been observed that Barnstaple had established a position as one of the leading centres for the manufacture of single bays by the beginning of the seventeenth century.[14] The indications are therefore that Devonian producers built on the advantage which they already enjoyed in producing these cloths, and rapidly stepped up production to meet changing demand in a way that their counterparts elsewhere either failed or were unable to do. Barnstaple was not alone in experiencing an increase in cloth exports over this period: so too did the ports of Poole, Sandwich, Hull and Newcastle.[15] It is significant nonetheless that Barnstaple’s trade in this respect differed from other ports both within the Bristol Channel, and in the wider south west.
Wine
Cloth exports from the port were directed to the continental western
seaboard including Lisbon, Bilbao, St Jean de Luz and La Rochelle. The port’s
imports reflected these destinations and had a more varied profile than its
exports. Chief amongst these imports was wine, with Bordeaux
being the origin of most of the wine shipped to the Bristol Channel, and
northern France and Iberia as secondary sources. Wine was usually shipped
following the autumn grape harvest and arrived into port during the early
winter months. At Bristol prior to 1558
wine formed by far the most important part of the city’s trade accounting for
as much as half of all imports by value.[16]
Comparative figures for many of the Bristol Channel ports are not available for
this earlier period as Gloucester was not recorded separately in the Exchequer
accounts before 1575, whilst the earliest Exchequer account for the port
of Milford is dated 1559/60, and for the port of Cardiff not until 1579.[17]
The figures for
the ports of Barnstaple and Bridgwater however indicate that the wine trade did
not comprise such a large share of the inbound trade: at Barnstaple customs
record wine accounting for 31 percent of the overall value of imports in
1517/18, and 41 percent in 1554/55; at Bridgwater the figures were 35 percent
in 1510/11, and 18 percent in 1544/45. These nonetheless still represent
significant amounts and the trade was an important one.
The customs duties levied on wine differed from those for other commodities. A specific duty called tunnage calculated at three shillings per tun was levied, and after 1558 an additional surcharge or imposte was imposed on French wines which raised the effective duty to 53s 4d per tun.[18] Additionally cargoes of ten to nineteen tuns were liable to pay a tax known as prisage deducted at the rate of one tun in kind or cash equivalent; and cargoes of twenty tuns and above were liable to pay prisage at two tuns. The calculation of the cash equivalent of prisage was left to the discretion of local officials and this was used to their advantage by the authorities at Ilfracombe. In 1585 the farmer of the customs of wine at Bristol wrote to Lord Burghley, the lord treasurer, complaining that though Ilfracombe was so small a place that it could not provide a market for more than four tuns of wine a year, yet ‘vii ships within one moneth of late have made their entries, of neere iiii c tons’. [19] Their reason for so doing was that prisage was levied at Ilfracombe at around half the rate at Bristol, so merchants could save money by declaring their wine at Ilfracombe and then sending it coastwise to Bristol or other ports.[20]
The rates at which customs were levied impacted on trading practices therefore, and a consequence of the impost introduced in 1558 was an equally large rise in evasion of customs and a consequent drop in the volumes recorded in the Exchequer records. At Bristol this fall was as much as 58 percent in the ten year period following the introduction of the imposition on French wine.[21] Table 2.2 appears to reflect the same causation in the port of Barnstaple. The data also bears out the Bristol farmer’s contention about the amounts that Ilfracombe would normally consume.
Table 2.2 Barnstaple & Ilfracombe: imports of wine (tuns).
|
Year |
Barnstaple |
Ilfracombe |
|
1509/10 (quarters
1&2) |
83 |
- |
|
1517/18 |
101 |
- |
|
1523/24 |
- |
5 |
|
1536/37 |
- |
3 |
|
1543/44 |
9 |
3 |
|
1554/55 |
68 |
- |
|
1581/82 |
28 |
- |
|
1595/96 |
53 |
- |
A potential problem with this and other data
collected from the smaller ports is that figures can show considerable
fluctuations between different years. Nevertheless, despite this, longer term
trends are still discernable, as are the effect of specific events such as the
1544-46 war with France which disrupted wine supplies as illustrated above.
In some respects Barnstaple mimicked the role
played by Bristol where large ships entered from overseas with continental
cargoes which were then broken down into smaller shipments for despatch to other ports. Barnstaple was a relatively small
port with a limited inland market. Although a good haven for shipping, the town
is located on the Taw which was navigable for only a few miles upstream, and
its immediate hinterland included Exmoor which was both comparatively sparsely
populated and inaccessible. The location of Barnstaple made it akin to the port
towns under the jurisdiction of Milford on the opposite shores of the Bristol
Channel. These too were encumbered by difficult land communications and long
distances to other urban centres. However unlike the Milford port towns, the port books record
that Barnstaple acted as an entreport for the onward marketing of goods
received from overseas. In relation to wine for instance, in the accounts
sampled between 1561 and 1600 the port of Barnstaple recorded 110 tuns inward
from overseas and 76 tuns outwards coastally, whilst the port of Bridgwater
recorded 256 tuns inwards but only nine outwards.[22] Although
the sampling used here has necessarily involved different years for the two
locations, and for the overseas and coastal accounts, the relationship is
nevertheless clear.
Iron
Imports of iron from the northern Spanish ports
of Bilbao and San Sebastian had a similar profile. Using the same dataset as for
wine, Barnstaple imported 379 tons of iron from overseas and dispatched 102
tons coastally, compared to 399 tons inward and four tons outward at
Bridgwater. Bristol was the main market for the iron sent from Barnstaple,
receiving just under half of all shipments, with the balance evenly distributed
amongst multiple landing places around the Bristol Channel and Cornish coasts.
Table 2.3 Barnstaple & Ilfracombe: imports of iron (tons).
|
Year |
Barnstaple |
Ilfracombe |
|
1517/18 |
77 |
- |
|
1523/24 |
- |
3 |
|
1534 (Quarter 1&2) |
43 |
15 |
|
1536/37 |
- |
1 |
|
1543/44 |
28 |
15 |
|
1554/55 |
14 |
- |
|
1565 (Quarter 3&4) |
105 |
8 |
|
1570/71 |
85 |
- |
|
1581/82 |
69 |
- |
|
1595/96 |
73 |
- |
The figures in table 2.3 illustrate that
Barnstaple’s imports of iron held at a fairly consistent level over the
century. Figure 2.1 illustrates that this was in stark contrast to Bristol
where such imports fell by 94 percent between the nearest comparable years of 1516/17
and 1594/95. At Bridgwater although the fall was not so dramatic, overseas iron
imports nevertheless tailed off and none at all were recorded in 1597/98.
Indeed Barnstaple appears to have imported even more iron than Bristol by the
end of the century: Bristol recorded approximately 55 tons inwards during
1594/95 compared to 73 tons at Barnstaple in the following financial year.
Figure 2.1
Comparative imports of iron: Bristol, Bridgwater and
Barnstaple (base year index of 100)[23]
The reasons for this decline at Bristol and
Bridgwater will be explored in more detail in the following chapter, but the
salient point here is that Barnstaple’s merchants continued to trade in goods
of Spanish origin until the end of the century. This is significant as this
trade appears to have continued undiminished by the adverse political situation
which affected trade with Spain in the later decades of the century. Although an absolute ban on trade with Spain was not ordered by the
English government, an embargo on trade in ordnance and grain with Spain was
imposed during the war from 1585-1603.[24] An absolute ban on English ships using Spanish
ports was imposed by the Spanish crown however, although in practice this
proved impossible to enforce and English ships continued to use Spanish ports,
particularly in the north. [25] Equally,
trade was conducted through third party ports such as Bayonne and St Jean de Luz as a politically expedient tactic to
circumvent direct trading with Spain in contravention of the Spanish government
embargo. [26] These ports began to be listed in
Barnstaple’s customs records as the origin of iron shipments from 1590 onwards.
Salt
Long term trends in the importation of continental salt to the port also stand in stark contrast to those found at other English Bristol Channel ports. Salt was an important commodity in the sixteenth century which was used for preserving foodstuffs such as meat and fish, and in the manufacture of butter and cheese, as well as being a key ingredient in a number of industrial processes including tanning. The Barnstaple overseas customs accounts record the importation of salt from the Bay of Bourgenouf and from Iberia as a staple commodity throughout the century.
Table 2.4 Port of Barnstaple: imports of salt (tons).[27]
|
Year |
Barnstaple |
Ilfracombe |
||
|
1517/18 |
58 |
- |
||
|
1543/44 |
160 |
- |
||
|
1554/55 |
140 |
55 |
||
|
1570/71 |
137 |
- |
||
|
1576/77 |
- |
34 |
||
|
1579/80 |
- |
76 |
||
|
1581/82 |
133 |
- |
||
|
1595/96 |
275 |
4 |
||
|
||||
The trend in salt imports described in Table 2.4 again distinguishes Barnstaple from both the ports of Bridgwater and Bristol.
Figure 2.2 Comparative imports of salt: Bristol, Bridgwater and Barnstaple (base year index of 100)[28]
Figure 2.2 indicates that imports of salt to Bridgwater declined by 80 percent over the course of the century, and at Bristol were around a third higher by 1594/95 compared to 1503/04 but had never risen by more than twofold from this basis year. At Barnstaple however, imports of salt appear to have risen sharply towards the end of the century and were some four and a half times greater in 1595/96 than they had been in 1517/18. In particular Barnstaple’s merchants developed a close link with La Rochelle in the salt trade which was recorded as the origin of all thirteen ships freighting salt in 1595/96 for instance. La Rochelle was an entreport for Spanish goods so it is possible that the port was being used for importing salt which had previously been recorded inbound from Cadiz and Lisbon; although equally, and perhaps more probably, there is no reason why it should not have been of French origin of course.[29] A further reason for the close relationship with La Rochelle can possibly be located in the religious complexion of the two ports. La Rochelle was a protestant outpost in France and may therefore have been favoured by the leading merchants and burgesses at Barnstaple during this period who displayed an increasingly radical Protestantism.[30] La Rochelle certainly came to play a greater role in Barnstaple’s trade in the final decade of the century. From representing nine percent of overall trade by value in 1570/71 and 1581/82, it rose to have 38 percent in 1595/96. A further sign of close relations is indicated by one of Barnstaple’s leading merchants, John Peard, who arranged for his son to be a factor in La Rochelle at this time.[31]
Unlike its imports of iron and wine, very little salt was subsequently recorded outbound from the port. For instance only fourteen tons were recorded outbound coastally over six months in 1570 compared to 133 tons recorded inward during 1570/71. None at all was recorded outbound in the surviving records for 1565 or for 1591/92. The absence of outbound shipments of salt recorded in the port’s coastal customs accounts suggests that Barnstaple required this salt for its own processing industries. The likelihood is that this was required for food processing as although the parish register lists a wide range of crafts in the town, there are none such as tanning which were particularly associated with the use of salt. [32] The imported salt may therefore have been used for salting fish, either ashore in Devon, or in the Newfoundland fisheries in which Barnstaple men played an increasingly prominent role.[33]
Fish
Fish were an important part of people’s diet in the medieval and early modern periods and port towns with their easy access to the sea were self evidently bound up with this branch of commerce. Thomas Beaple was no doubt but one of many who combined fishing with other merchant activities. He was recorded amongst those forming part of a large fleet fishing for herring off Dovey in north Wales in 1567, but also appears in the Exchequer accounts sending kerseys to Lisbon and St Jean de Luz, and soap and wool to Bristol.[34] Beaple’s catch is not recorded in these documents however, and like much of the fish trade during this period remains invisible to historians. There are several reasons for this. Firstly, fresh fish were never subject to customs since they were neither exported nor imported as such. Secondly, a law enacted in 1563 aimed to increase the English merchant fleet by suspending certain duties on both imports of fish caught by Englishmen in English vessels, and also on exports of sea fish.[35] A note written by Walsingham indicates that the application of this law was interpreted widely enough to have also applied to imports of fish from Ireland, which had all previously been subject to duty.[36] Consequently all fish imports effectively disappeared from the customs accounts until 1591 when some types were again recorded.[37] Fish from the Newfoundland fisheries remained exempt after 1591, although there are instances where such cargoes were recorded in the port books but with no duty levied.[38] Fish from Ireland however were both recorded and paid duty after 1591.[39] Having noted this, a further qualification must be made as an exemption allowing fishermen to exempt fish from customs which they had caught themselves seems to have been widely applied. At Gloucester where the customs clerk was particularly meticulous in noting details of fish cargoes for instance, less than one third of the volumes imported from Ireland were liable to duty.[40] The customs accounts from the first six decades of the century are therefore the most reliable and consistent record of the fish trade insofar as that trade concerned imports of preserved fish. As such they are largely a reflection of fish imports from Ireland which was the dominant source of supply in this period.
Fish have been described as the most important product of sixteenth century Ireland which was notable for the large quantities of preserved fish it exported to both Europe and England.[41] Pickled (‘white’) herring, and smoked (‘red’) herring formed the largest part of this trade, with hake as a secondary but substantial catch, and various other fish including salmon comprising the rest. The notable thing about Barnstaple’s trade in this respect is how sporadic such Irish imports were, and how little was imported from Ireland compared to other English ports in the Channel. This point will be explored further in Chapter Three, but whereas Bristol, Bridgwater and Minehead recorded a regular inbound fish trade from Ireland, Barnstaple recorded no Irish fish imports at all in 1543/44 for instance; and in 1554/55 only three Irish vessels were recorded inbound with cargoes of fish valued for customs at just over Ł18 compared to a total value of trade through the port that year of Ł1,472.
In contrast this trade was marginally greater at the much smaller port of Ilfracombe: although there is no directly comparable data for the member port of Barnstaple in 1536/37, the Ilfracombe accounts show Irish activity at the port with four inbound ships; in 1543/44 whilst no Irish ships called at Barnstaple, three did at Ilfracombe; and in 1554/55 seven Irish ships were entered at Ilfracombe compared to three at Barnstaple. This is a small sample and it would be unwise to come to too firm a conclusion based upon it, but it is notable that 40 percent of Ilfracombe’s recorded fish imports came from the Irish port of Youghal compared to only two percent at Barnstaple in the accounts sampled. Youghal similarly represented an insignificant trading partner at other ports studied, and so may have enjoyed particularly close relations with Ilfracombe. Wendy Childs in her study of fifteenth century shipping also noticed the prevalence of Irish vessels and of the Irish fish trade at Ilfracombe compared to Barnstaple, so the Irish connection with Ilfracombe, if not the Youghal connection, was apparently of long standing.[42]
The relatively low imports of Irish fish into Barnstaple may perhaps be explained by the port having had a fishing fleet which was sufficiently developed to meet local demand, and so reduce or remove the demand for imports. Indeed Barnstaple’s fishermen may have supplied other Bristol Channel ports with home preserved fish. Although these would not be apparent from the Exchequer records themselves, testimony given in 1582 at Gloucester described how between 20 and 30 boats laden with fish came yearly from Cornwall, Devonshire, Ireland and Wales.[43] Thomas Beaple fishing with a fleet off the north Welsh coast has already been described, and Barnstaple local port regulations which refer to tolls on the landing of fish, and restrictions on certain methods of fishing confirm that fishing was sufficiently developed for it to be regulated.[44] Without further evidence the extent of such a fleet must remain conjectural, but its existence would explain why Barnstaple men and ships were at the forefront of the English exploitation of western Atlantic fisheries later in the century. [45] Alison Grant has provided a detailed and convincing analysis of the port books which demonstrates that Barnstaple merchants were engaged in this trade from at least 1579.[46] Seven vessels were recorded inbound from Newfoundland in 1588/89 with a cargo of codfish oil, and in 1594 nine north Devon ships were given permission to sail to Newfoundland.[47] Grant suggests that trade in cod must have been conducted both directly from Newfoundland to continental ports, and also coastwise from Barnstaple to other domestic ports. Grant and others have argued that this far flung trade attracted and required larger, better capitalised merchants who could underwrite the costs of prolonged voyages which required large provision and substantial vessels.[48] Men such as William Leigh for example, who was the principal importer of salt to Barnstaple, as well as a merchant partner who was recorded importing from Newfoundland.[49]
Leather
Calf skins and other types of leather were in high demand and were a profitable export, but restrictions had been in place since 1538 whereby it was illegal to sell these overseas without a license.[50] Licenses were issued by the Crown as a form of political patronage and were subsequently divided and sold on by those who were the beneficiaries.[51] As such they were neither cheap nor easy to obtain, and the incentive to trade without one was strong. That the restrictions were not wholly effective is indicated by a series of further measures taken by the Crown and parliament over the century to curb exports, including making the unlicensed export of leather a capital offence.[52]
Although the customs accounts do not record that volumes of leather shipped from the north Devon ports were as sizeable as those which emanated from the ports of Milford or Gloucester, it was nevertheless an important strand of the port’s trade. Unlike Milford or Gloucester however, north Devon was not renowned for the production of leather, and the Exchequer accounts recorded frequent and sizeable shipments inwards to the port from places as diverse as Cardiff, Carmarthen, Swansea, Tenby, Bristol, Wexford, Dublin and Cork.[53] Doubtless there was a domestic demand for this in north Devon which needed to be satisfied, but a disproportionate share of this trade appears to have been directed to the smaller port of Ilfracombe rather than the larger port of Barnstaple which suggests a different marketing dynamic. The discontinuous survival of corresponding coastal accounts for Barnstaple and Ilfracombe makes definitive analysis difficult, but in 1569/70 for instance over 6,000 animal skins (tanned hides and calf skins) were shipped coastwise to Ilfracombe, compared to something over 1,100 skins to Barnstaple for the nearest comparable period (six months of the following financial year).[54] In the last two quarters of 1575/76 Ilfracombe received approximately 1,200 skins, or approximately half the amount that the far larger port of Bristol imported coastally over the equivalent period. The significance of this is that evidence which will be considered more fully in Chapter Six indicates that Barnstaple, and in particular Ilfracombe, was being used as a routing point for illegal shipment of leather overseas. A coastal certificate was issued at Carmarthen for 41 dickers of tanned leather to be transported to Barnstaple, but it was subsequently learned that the leather had been taken to Ilfracombe where it was transhipped aboard the Angel of Bideford and taken to Brest.[55] Further evidence points to the association of the north Devon ports and an illicit trade in leather. In 1570 a case was bought against the deputy customer and searcher at Barnstaple alleging that they had conspired with merchants in the illegal export of calf skins.[56] In 1572 the searcher seized leather bound overseas at Ilfracombe, and nineteen dickers of leather were alleged to have been loaded aboard the Jesus of Northam once she had passed over the harbour bar.[57] In 1585 the Eagle of Bideford was seized whilst still in harbour at Barnstaple, and her illegal cargo of hides and calf skins destined for Bilbao and Bordeaux was forfeit to the crown.[58] This was not the first occasion that the Eagle had been implicated in illicit trading: in 1575 an investigation attempted to establish whether she had freighted bell metal to Biscay under colour of a coastal cocket from Bristol.[59] There is therefore good reason for believing that much of the leather sent coastwise to the north Devon ports may have been intended for illicit export.
Lead
This was
not the only branch of trade in which Barnstaple appears to have conducted an
illicit trade. Lead was mined in Derbyshire and in the Mendips during the
sixteenth century and was used along with tin in the manufacture of pewter, and
in very large quantities for roofing and pipework.[60]
It was also used for the manufacture of ammunition, and Mendip lead, which was
of lower quality, was especially suitable for this purpose.[61] Lead was not a prohibited ware and so could
be exported legally, but an embargo on trade in ordnance and grain with Spain
was imposed during the war from 1585-1603.[62]
Despite (or because of) the embargo and restrictions imposed by both the
English and Spanish governments, Spain represented a lucrative market for west
country merchants who freighted Mendip lead in the century’s later years.
In this context a rise in coastal shipments of
lead into the port of Barnstaple through the 1580s and 90s is therefore
notable. During the last two quarters of 1565 three tons were received
coastally; for the same period in 1570 and 1583 seven tons, and thirteen and a
half tons respectively; and for the first two quarters in 1591/92 eleven tons.[63]
This came mainly from Bristol, although it was imported by Barnstaple
merchants. This could have been required for domestic building purposes, or alternatively
it may have been required for munitions aboard the reprising ships sailing from
the port. But the customs accounts indicate that similar quantities were being
exported so it would seem that lead was being sourced domestically for transhipment and export overseas. In 1581/82 sixteen
tons were exported to Bilbao, Cadiz and Nantes principally by Richard
Dodderidge. This was legal at this date
as it occurred prior to the embargo, but that Dodderidge’s trade was not
entirely innocent is suggested by an order made by the court of Exchequer in
1582 concerning charges brought against him and another Barnstaple merchant by
the searcher at Bristol in connection with the transporting of lead.[64]
The details of the charge and case are lost, and no subsequent exports of lead
from Barnstaple were recorded so the trail runs cold on Richard Dodderidge at
this point. Significantly however, coastwise shipments continued to arrive into
the port after the 1585 embargo on exports of ordnance, although exports were
no longer recorded in the Exchequer accounts for obvious reasons. Bristol merchants during this period were
said to be pay large sums to the customs officers at Bristol to allow them to
export lead to Spain in contravention of the embargo, and the possibility, even
probability, is that Dodderidge continued to conduct a similar trade.[65]
That Barnstaple ships continued to trade with Spain despite the trade
restrictions is confirmed by the town
clerk’s chronicle in 1603 which recorded that ‘merchants and shippes belonging
to this towne go and traffick into Spain and Portugal as usual’.[66]
Grain
Whilst the
evidence for the illicit export of lead is tenuous and remains conjectural,
that relating to the export of grain is much firmer. The export of grain along
with dairy products and meat was prohibited by royal proclamation in 1531.[67] In practice an absolute ban did not result
from this as merchants were allowed to export these foodstuffs legally provided
they had obtained a license, and providing that certain conditions were met
with regard to the prevailing market price of grain.[68]
However given the difficulty and cost of obtaining licenses, and the
increasingly high customs duty that was levied on such exports, the incentive
to smuggle foodstuffs increased progressively from 1531 onwards. Grain has been
found to have been one of the main commodities illicitly traded from the port
of Bristol during the sixteenth century with the majority of this bound for
Spain; a trade which continued even during the Anglo-Spanish wars.[69]
There is a
considerable body of evidence which points to the illegal shipping of grain,
both by Barnstaple’s merchants and by the customs officers of the port. In 1576
the George was seized at Ilfracombe
when it was found to be attempting to ship corn to Spain with the full
knowledge of some of the customs officers.[70]
The same year eleven merchants petitioned the lord treasurer over the illegal
export of grain and their failure to answer subpoenas in that respect.[71] An
Exchequer commission of enquiry conducted in 1570-71 heard that despite it
being illegal for customs officers to conduct overseas trade, the searcher was
a major purchaser of grain which he stored in barn near Hartland Point ready to
load aboard ships once they had crossed over the bar at the mouth of Barnstaple
harbour.[72]
It was also claimed that leather was openly loaded at the quayside for passage
overseas, and that so far as its overseas trade was concerned the port handled nothing but prohibited
wares.[73]
A potential difficulty with accepting some of this evidence at face value is that it was made by merchants whose own commercial dealings were frustrated by the customs officers, and who may therefore have wished to cast the officers in as bad a light as possible to the Crown investigators. In these circumstances the evidence offered by informers can hardly be taken as a disinterested account of events. Elton demonstrated that those making accusations of smuggling often did so for personal financial gain as they stood to receive either half of the proceeds, or alternatively, and more usually, could be paid to drop the allegation by those accused.[74] Proceedings could be lodged under a writ of qui tam whereby those who instigated a successful case before a court were rewarded by the granting of a share of the fine imposed.[75] The majority of these types of case were heard in the court of Exchequer and most concerned allegations of customs fraud.[76] Not all Exchequer proceedings are so tainted however. The evidence provided by Exchequer commissions of enquiry such as that presented above, rather than by cases bought under a writ of qui tam, is of a different weight. Those which were concerned with abuses in customs, and which are frequently cited in this thesis, were conducted by a panel of independent commissioners appointed by the Crown. The clerk recorded in great detail the testimony given which was often made by a large number of witnesses, who represented a wide range of people - from the customer down to the humblest stevedore for example. The often corroborative nature of this, along with some obvious falsehoods from the accused, can build a compelling case. For instance an enquiry was conducted into the deputy customer at Barnstaple who was accused of making a single entry in his ledger but of issuing multiple cockets against that entry which he then sold to merchants so allowing them free passage with their goods.[77] The unlikely explanation from one of the ship’s masters concerned was that he had put to sea but belatedly realised that the cockets he had were ‘skant leagible’ and so had returned to port to have several copies made to be on the safe side.[78] Despite the possibility that some of the statements made to them might have been coloured, the findings of the commissioners at Barnstaple regarding the smuggling of grain are therefore credible, and are also consistent with practices elsewhere, both in the Bristol Channel and nationally at this time.[79]
Smuggling
The observation that smuggling was endemic in the sixteenth
century is not new.[80]
The argument which this thesis seeks to advance however is that unrecorded
trade as a proportion of total trade may have been greater at the smaller
Channel ports than it was at Bristol itself. For this to be true there would
have to have been a greater degree of smuggled goods relative to total trade
passing through these ports than was the case at Bristol. In other words that
smuggling was more extensive in ports such as Barnstaple than it was in the
port of Bristol. Attempting to quantify this unrecorded and illegal trade is
obviously difficult, and often simply impossible. That this might have been the
case at Barnstaple however is suggested by the fact that as well as smuggling
prohibited wares such as leather and grain, a trade which was being widely
conducted elsewhere, Barnstaple merchants were also smuggling cloth from the
port. Evan Jones found no evidence of
the illegal export of cloth by the Bristol merchant John Smythe in mid-century,
and although he argues that there may have been a strong incentive to smuggle in
the immediate aftermath of the 1558 increase in duty he has found no evidence
to substantiate this.[81]
Indeed Jones argues that the volume of
illicit shipments of cloth is likely to have fallen in the last decades of the
century and that ‘most of the recorded fall in Bristol’s exports of broadcloth
during the period 1558-1600 was real’.[82]
Similarly Jean Vanes found that only seven percent of informations bought to
the Court of Exchequer in the period 1559-1603 concerned cloth exports which
also suggests that the problem was not extensive.[83]
The evidence from the port of Barnstaple however suggests that considerable quantities of cloth were smuggled overseas, and that this was done with the cooperation of the customs officers. A case bought by the Crown in 1570-71 heard testimony that the Julyan bound for St John de Luz entered for customs for 38 kerseys but actually freighting 122; and that the Jacket which had no cloths entered in customs had 25 aboard according to the purser’s records.[84] A further incident was recorded in which more than 90 kerseys had been loaded aboard a boat at night to be conveyed to a ship lying near the mouth of the Taw at Appledore.[85] On this occasion the customer did enter the cloth into the customs book, but not until two days after the ship had sailed, and then only because bad weather had forced the ship to return to Ilfracombe where a customs officer who was not part of the cabal at Barnstaple had attempted to board it to inspect its cargo. Four ships were identified freighting a total of 199 kerseys which had not been declared to customs over a two month period, compared to 38 which had been declared. In other words only around 20 percent of the actual cargoes were said to be recorded in the port books. Later testimony concerning a ship called the Katherine of Fremington provides further allegations of under declaration with a list of named merchants, their lading and their declarations to customs.
John Waldron had ten packes and entred unto the custom boke but xxxxvi clothes John West had ffowre packes and he entred but xii clothes in the custome boke John Waldron the younger had one pack and entered three clothes Hartnall had one pack and entred three clothes John Barret had lxxviii kerseys and entred sixe clothes John Saunder had two packettes and entred three clothes Rychard Doderydge had eight packettes or there aboutes and entred into the custome boke but x clothes or there aboutes.[86]
A pack contained ten cloths and so it can be seen that on this occasion the merchants were said to be declaring around a third of their actual ladings. The interesting thing about this list however is not only the level of under declaration described, but the fact that these were all relatively small merchants, and that many of them were not natives of Barnstaple but came from Tiverton and South Molton. The significance of this is that access to illicit trade at the port appears to have been widespread, both from a geographical perspective and also in the range of merchants who were engaged in it. It does not seem to have been confined only to a small, well connected, rich merchant elite, but appears to have been routine even for those less immediately associated with the town. This in turn suggests that illicit trading must have been relatively greater in the smaller north Devon ports than it was at Bristol where smuggling was conducted more clandestinely and largely confined to a small group of elite merchants.[87]
Commercial Development
By the end of the century the horizons of Barnstaple’s merchants extended well beyond the western coast of France and northern Spain which had characterised the extent of trade at the opening of the century. As well as extending their trading enterprises to the coast of Africa and America, Barnstaple’s merchants had developed a strong association with the island of St Michael’s in the Azores.[88] Thus by 1600 the size of vessels, the range of their trading, and the value of their cargoes had all increased. The commodities imported were correspondingly more exotic, more luxurious and of higher value. Sugar, ivory and madder all made their appearance in the customs accounts after mid century. This far flung trade conducted in high value products aboard large ocean going vessels required a different profile of merchant. The century thus witnessed a consolidation of the principal branches of trade towards fewer, but better capitalised merchants, who consequently held a progressively larger market share: the top three wine merchants in Barnstaple accounted for 64 percent of the wine trade by volume in 1517/18 for example, but in 1595/96 the top three merchants had 91 percent of this market; for iron imports the comparable figures are 41 percent in 1517/18 compared to 58 percent in 1595/96; and for cloth exports on a value basis 35 percent and 51 percent respectively.
An important source of the increased capital which facilitated this commercial trajectory was provided through the capture of foreign ships and their cargoes.[89] Although piracy and privateering were by no means new activities so far as Devon merchants were concerned, the scale of armed raiding of this sort increased dramatically once war with Spain was declared in 1585.[90] The same men who were at the forefront of the town’s maritime trade, and who often held the major civic offices, were also the main sponsors of ships seeking to take Spanish prizes. Richard Dodderidge for example, a prominent trader in cloth and iron with Spain, who financed the building of the 100 ton Prudence which took four prizes including one worth Ł10,000 and another Ł16,000; or James and Nicholas Downe who were his partners in one of these voyages, and were also merchants who specialised in the Spanish trade; or John Norris who shipped cloth to Cadiz in 1582 and subsequently sponsored the Falcon’s Flight on a reprisal voyage in 1590.[91] The fabulous wealth which capturing the right ship could bring to the financiers and crew of such voyages was not lost on contemporaries: in 1590 the town clerk recorded the arrival of the Prudence ‘with prize portugall ship of about 80 tons which had been at castellmayne upon the coast of guinea having in her 4 chests of gold to the value of 16000 pounds and diverse chains of gold with civet, ambergreece and other things of great price, with much graynes, elephant tooth etc and such a value as the liek price hath not before this time been brought into this port’.[92] Such voyages were by no means incidental to normal trade at the port. The town clerk makes clear that they were major and frequent undertakings, crewed in one instance with 80 men, and it has been estimated that more than half of Devon’s shipping was engaged in privateering during this period.[93]
The effect on the recorded customs revenues of these activities was therefore considerable, although it is unlikely that the entire cargoes of such ships was declared. One estimate suggests that only one fifth of prize cargoes bought into Devon ports was officially recorded, and whilst the Barnstaple town clerk described the cargo of the Spiritu Sanctu at Ł16,000 it was entered for customs at Ł10,000.[94] The fact that these goods were entered into customs at all however, serves to emphasise that this trade was legal. As such it may be considered a successful exploitation by Barnstaple merchants of a new market opportunity in the closing decades of the century. One which they were well placed to exploit in view of their previous knowledge of Spanish shipping routes, and their extensive maritime fleet. Although merchants at other minor Bristol Channel ports also financed reprisal voyages, none did so to the extent of Barnstaple which remains a place associated in the popular historical imagination with patriotic, buccaneering sea dogs.
The buccaneering spirit displayed by members of the merchant community extended beyond reprisal voyages however, and patriotic spirit was distinctly absent in another parallel branch of Barnstaple’s maritime activities. Pauline Croft has highlighted the irony of west country ports having been the principal base for anti Spanish privateers as well as the main centres for illicit trade with the enemy. [95] The evidence from Barnstaple supports this contention. Evidence from the coastal accounts indicates that Barnstaple acted as a centre from which Spanish and Portuguese sourced goods were distributed around the Bristol Channel ports, and that it continued in this role even during the 1580s and 90s. Imports of Spanish iron did not fall as they did at other English Bristol Channel ports, and imports of continental salt, possibly of Spanish origin, increased markedly in the last decades of the century. Furthermore coastal imports of lead and leather into the port increased towards the end of the century from destinations around the Channel including Bristol. These appear to have then been rerouted to Spanish destinations suggesting that Devonian merchants built on the contacts they already enjoyed in the Spanish trade and began to specialise in running contraband cargoes to Spanish customers in a way that distinguished them from merchants in other Bristol Channel ports.
Conclusion
In many respects the port of Barnstaple fits the description of having been a ‘mini Bristol’: like Bristol the focus of its overseas trade was primarily with Iberia; like Bristol it acted as an entreport for the onward shipping of continental goods; like Bristol its merchants expanded the bounds of their trading westwards and southwards as the century progressed. Barnstaple also shared close relations with Bristol which was the origin or destination for much, although not most, of its coastal trade. Yet on the other hand it followed a different trajectory. Firstly, and surprisingly, Ireland was never a significant trading partner at the port of Barnstaple: whereas Ireland accounted for fourteen percent of Bristol’s recorded imports in 1516/17, and twenty percent in 1544/45 for instance, Irish derived imports represented just four percent of all imports to Barnstaple in 1517/18, and none at all were recorded in 1543/44. Conversely the relationship with Ireland was an important one for the smaller port of Ilfracombe. Secondly, in contrast to Bristol, cloth exports remained a significant part of the north Devon ports’ trade, and even if they were not its only export trade in the way that the port books sometimes indicate, they were nevertheless important, and rose rather than fell over time. Thirdly, also in contrast to Bristol, the level of Iberian imports of iron increased over the course of the century. Similarly continental imports of salt grew markedly in this period. Fourthly, Barnstaple was seen to have developed a niche trading relationship with the port of La Rochelle which accounted for over a third of its declared trade in 1595/96 compared to only ten percent at Bristol in the preceding financial year. Finally, privateering was an important activity involving a much greater degree of overall resources at Barnstaple than was the case at any other minor Bristol Channel port.
It seems clear that by the final decades of the century far more than just cloth was being exported from Barnstaple and Ilfracombe in the way that the Exchequer accounts indicate, and that this source alone does not fully reflect all strands of the region’s trade. A parallel covert export trade in leather, grain and probably also lead operated in a semi clandestine manner, with the connivance or participation of the customs officers. The evidence presented to the 1570-71 commission of enquiry suggests that the illicit trade was on a considerable scale, and according to one witness may even have been greater than the legitimate trade recorded in the port books.[96] The export trade in cloth also appears to have been understated by a factor of between three and five based on the above evidence. The assessment by Grant that at Barnstaple ‘large scale and sustained evasion of duties was probably only occasional’ is therefore surely too optimistic.[97] Joyce Youings noticed that tax records indicate that north Devon’s economy grew to a much greater extent after 1550 than is apparent from a reading of the customs records and posed the question, 'Were official suspicions about customs revenue perhaps well founded in north Devon?’. [98] The answer must surely be yes.