¹ Longfield, A.K., Anglo–Irish trade in the sixteenth century (1929)Google Scholar; of. Lewis, E.A., The Welsh port books, 1550–1603 (1927)Google Scholar, Willan, T.S., Studies in Elizabethan foreign trade (1959)Google Scholar. Wilson, K.P., Chester customs accounts, 1301–1566 (1969)Google Scholar. Woodward, D.M., Trade of Elizabethan Chester (1970)Google Scholar, ch. 2; see also his ’Overseas trade of Chester, 1600–50’ in Hist. Soc. Lanes. & Ches. Trans., 122 (1971); ‘Anglo–Irish livestock trade in the seventeenth century’ in I.H.S., xviii, no. 71 (Sept. 1973); cf. Gullen, Anglo-Ir. trade. For Bristol, Garus-Wilson’s, E.M. account of its fifteenth century trade (Medieval merchant venturers (2nd ed., 1967), pp 13–28)Google Scholar has been brought forward by Vanes, J.M. in ‘The overseas trade of Bristol in the sixteenth century’ (Ph.D. thesis, University of Bristol, 1975).Google Scholar

² Wood, H., Guide to the records deposited in the Public Record Office of Ireland (1919), p. 123.Google Scholar

³ Leeds Public Library, Temple Newsam MSS, Irish Customs I, 1–6, 23 (listed in H.M.C., Var. colls, viii, 190–92). Ironically, these survivors were intended to assist the first farmers of the customs in claiming defalcations of rent rather than to record the revenue accruing to the crown ( Treadwell, V.W., ‘ Irish financial administrative reform under James I : the customs and state regulation of trade ’ (Ph.D. thesis, Belfast, 1961), pp 240–41).Google Scholar

⁴ The best introduction to the continental trade of Ireland is still Green, A.S., The making of Ireland and her undoing (rev. ed., 1924)Google Scholar, in spite of her polemical exaggerations. ‘A special direction for divers trades (1585)’ in Tawney, and Power, , Tudor econ. docs., 3, 199–210 Google Scholar is essential reading even for non–specialists. On the wine trade and its ramifications, the best scholarly study is Kearney, H.F., ‘The Irish wine trade, 1614–15’ in I.H.S., 9, no. 36 (Sept. 1955), pp 400–42Google Scholar, cf. Strafford in Ireland (1959), pp 130–37, 74–5.

⁵ Cf. Willan, T.S., A Tudor book of rates (1962), p. 54 Google Scholar, citing the customs and revenue from crown lands as ‘the two great pillars of the ordinary revenue’ For various reasons, the revenue from crown lands was fiscally inelastic in sixteenth century Ireland; it awaits scholarly investigation.

⁶ MacCaffrey, W.F, Exeter, 1540–1640 (1958), p. 160.Google Scholar

⁷ Discovery reflects Davies’s legal studies preparing for royal resumption of the customs. His role of attorney general appears more directly in The question concerning impositions . (London, 1656) and Report on cases and matters in law … in Ireland (Dublin, Eng. ed.,, 1762). Cf. my ‘Establishment of the form of the Irish customs, 1603–1613’ in E.H.R., xciii (July 1978).

⁸ O’Sullivan, M.D., ’ Italian merchant strangers and the collection of the customs in Ireland, 1275–1311’ in Medieval studies presented to Aubrey Gwynn, ed. Watt, JA. and others (1966)Google Scholar; Italian merchant bankers in Ireland in the thirteenth century (1962). Cf. Otway–Ruthven, Med. Ire., whose severely political approach has no mention of O’Sullivan’s work. However, see her review of Irish medieval studies in Moody, TW (ed.), Irish historiography, 1936–70 (Dublin, 1971), pp 21 Google Scholar, 364. Contributions from Richardson and Sayles are cited below.

⁹ Beresford, M.W., ‘The common informer, the penal statutes and economic regulation’ in Econ. Hist. Rev., 2nd ser., 10 (1957), pp 221–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The pioneer efforts of Kiernan, T.J., Financial administration of Ireland to 1817 (1930), are unrewarding for this period.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Davies, , Report, pp 21–2Google Scholar; Question, pp 32–3, 36; Richardson, and Sayles, , Ir. pari, in middle ages (2nd ed., 1964), pp 111, 128.Google Scholar In the late thirteenth century, Italians farmed the revenue for £1000 p.a. ( O’Sullivan, in Med. Studies, pp 65–6).Google Scholar

¹¹ Morley, , Ire. under Eliz. & Jas I, p. 234 Google Scholar. This comment was characteristically misinterpreted by Green as a slur on the native Irish cloth industry. Davies was concerned with the relative fiscal value of the exports of raw materials. By 1485 the customs revenue had fallen from 2000 marks to £500 p.a. ( Otway–Ruthven, , Med. Ire., pp 164, 166).Google Scholar

¹² Richardson, & Sayles, , Parl. and councils med. Ire., 1, 27–8,Google Scholar Ir. par., pp 80, 114, 115.

¹³ Stat. Ire., 12–22 Edw. IV, pp 189–91, 381–2, 479–81, 735–7, 741–3; Davies, Discovery, in Morley, H., Ire. under Eliz & Jas I, pp 243–4Google Scholar; Davies, , Report, p. 31 Google Scholar; Otway–Ruthven, , Med. Ire., pp 395–6, 399.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Davies, , Report, p. 31 Google Scholar; Anal. Hib., x, 92; Cal. Carew MSS 1515–74, p. 322; Conway, Agnes, Henry VII’s relations with Scotland and Ireland, 1485–98 (1932), pp 120, 204.Google Scholar

¹⁵ 15 Hen. VII, c.l; although enrolled, this act was first printed by Bolton in 1621.

¹⁶ Also true for England ( Willan, , Tudor bk of rates, p 12)Google Scholar. In the 1660s, wine was still second in importance of Irish imports ( Cullen, , Anglo–Ir. trade, p. 29)Google Scholar. The Irish wine duties and their collection will receive only minimal treatment here—they are the subject of another paper in preparation.

¹⁷ See Jarvis, R.C., ‘The appointment of ports’ in Econ. Hist. Rev., 2nd ser. 11, 455–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁸ Until it obtained a charter, Galway was expected to pay customs at O’Brien, Cork, ‘Irish staple organisation’ in Econ. Hist., 1 (1926–29), pp 42–5Google Scholar; Richardson, and Sayles, , Ir. par., p. 93.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Dublin, Drogheda, Waterford, Cork, Limerick, Galway, Youghal, Wexford, New Ross, Kinsale, Dungarvan, Dundalk, Garrickfergus, Carlingford, Sligo, Dingle (11 Eliz. sess. 4, c.i).

²⁰ Holinshed, , Chronicles (1807–8 ed.), 6, 35 Google Scholar; Cal. S.P Ire., 1601–3, pp 676–7 Cf. Hogan, E. (ed.), Descr Ire., 1598 (1878), which lists 33.Google Scholar

²¹ Cf. instructions to successive lord deputies in 1543, 1550 and 1556 (Cal. pat. rolls Ire., Hen. VIII–Eliz., p. 99; Cal. Carew MSS, 1515–74, pp 228, 255). Strangford, Carrickfergus and Baltimore were specifically mentioned.

²² Bishop Lyon to Cecil, 15 Feb. 1600 (Cal. S.P. Ire., 1599–1600, p. 476).

²³ Ibid, pp 71–3; Cal S.P Ire., 1601–3, pp 54, 505.

²⁴ Cf. the contrary English practice described by Jarvis, loc. cit., p. 460.

²⁵ Cal. arte. rec. Dublin, i, 25, 30, 36–7; ii, 176; S.P Ire., Eliz., ccxxi, 47 I; Lib. mun. pub. Hib., i, pt 2, pp 147–8. The Dublin searcher was operating at Portrane and Howth in 1572 (R.I.A. Haliday MSS, memoranda rolls extracts, ff 357, 363). The admiralty rights conferred in 1582 were confiscated after quo warranto proceedings in 1613 (R.I.A., Haliday MSS, K.B. judgment rolls, ff 205 ff).

²⁶ Cal. fiants Eliz., no. 5334.

²⁷ Ibid., no. 4816; N. L. I., Harris Collectanea, v, 111–12; cf S.P. Ire., Eliz., Ixiv, 15, impost of wines account, 1569–78.

²⁸ Cal. Carew MSS, 1601–3, p. 24. Derry’s customs superiority extended as far east as the Bann. The Bann ports, Portrush and Coleraine, received recognition in Phillips’s farm of their customs in 1605 (Repert. pat. rolls Ire., Jas. I, pp 116, 231; Steele, , Proclamations, 2, no. 176)Google Scholar. For the development of Loughfoyle trade with Chester after 1600, see Woodward, , Trade Eliz. Chester, pp 24–5.Google Scholar

²⁹ Anal Hib., x, 113. The editor, Prof. D. B. Quinn, regards it as ‘a doubtful act’ However, the same provision (penalty, forfeiture of cargo) appeared in the customs code of 1585 (see below, p. 414) and may have originated earlier. It refers to ‘the statute’ but unlike several of the other orders it is not specific.

³⁰ Cal. Carew MSS, 1575–88, p. 209.

³¹ Cal. fiants Eliz., no. 2755 of 1576.

³² Wood-Martin, W.G. , History of Sligo, 2 (1889), p. 2; Cal. S.P Ire., 1600, p. 292.Google Scholar

³³ Cal. S.P. Ire., 1586–8, p. 320, Cal. S.P. Ire., 1592–6, p. 11.

³⁴ Dowdall deeds, p. 214; Cal. fiants, Henry VIII–Eliz., passim, but cf. the alienation of royal rights discussed below, sect. III.

³⁵ Meriek, J., Compendious collection (1617), p. 118 Google Scholar. Cf. Econ. Hist. Rev., series 2, xi, 461.

³⁶ Merick, , Compendious collection, p. 119 Google Scholar. Cf. P.R.O.I., Ferguson MSS, vii, 339–43 (art. 2).

³⁷ Anal. Hib., x, 116, 123.

³⁸ S.P. Ire., Eliz., clxviii, 49, iv; cf. Ormond’s undated petition of 1589–93 (S.P. Ire– Eliz., clxiv, 29).

³⁹ Ormond to Burghley, 2 May 1594 (S.P. Ire., Eliz., clxxiv, 33). The details are given in my thesis (above, n. 3), pp 9–11 Ormond was swimming against the tide, for the crown was reappropriating control of central exchequer patronage in England at this time ( Sainty, J. ‘The tenure of offices in the exchequer’ in E.H.R., 80 (1965), pp 449–75).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴⁰ 13 Hen. VIII, c. 2; 28 Hen. VIII, c. 17. A bill to empower the lord deputy to restrain the exportation of hides ad linen yarn was drafted for the parliament of 1541–3 but not enacted (Anal. Hib., x, 157). On licensing see Longfield, , Anglo–Irish trade, p. 78.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Cal. Carew MSS, 1515–74, p. 228; Steele, , Proclamations, 2, no. 17Google Scholar. Cf. Cal S.P. Ire., 1509–73 p. 99.

⁴² Cal fiants Eliz., nos 807, 888.

⁴³ 12 Edw. IV, c. 3 forbade the exportation of wheat when the price was at 10d. per peck or more. With the general rise in prices, the act became obsolete in the sixteenth century and licensing an economic necessity. C. Longfield, , Anglo-Irish trade, pp 110–15Google Scholar, Cal fiants Eliz., nos 1719, 1727, 1743, 1758. When poor harvests, the ravages of war and the maintenance of a large army raised the market price above what the English government was prepared to pay, the issuing of licences was regarded with suspicion and the lord deputy had to be ready with an explanation : see, for example, Fitzwilliam to Burghley, 25 Feb. 1592 (S.P Ire., Eliz., lxiii. 33, 331).

⁴⁴ Cal. fiants Eliz., nos 3060 (1577), 6689 (1602): Repert pat. rolls Ire., Jas I., p. 73 (1603); Longfield, , Anglo–Irish trade, pp 104, 106–7Google Scholar

⁴⁵ 11 Eliz., sess. 3, c. 10.

⁴⁶ 13 Eliz., c. 1. This act did not restrict the export trade in cloth and other manufactures to merchant staplers (cf. O’Brien, in Econ. Hist., 1, 44)Google Scholar but the original bill seems to have done so : Treadwell, V.W., ‘The Irish parliament of 1569–71’ in R.I.A. Proc., 65 C (1966), pp 79, 83.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ 13 Eliz., c. 2.

⁴⁸ The two classes of goods ‘prohibited’ in 1569 were, of course, not prohibited in the same sense. An insistence on proper casking, even if effective, was not the same bar to trade in victuals as the protection of Irish manufactures was to the export of textile raw materials. On the other hand, the requirements of the army led to frequent interference with the victuals trade.

⁴⁹ R.I.A. Proc., 65 C, pp 59–61, 74, 79, 83, 87–8.

⁵⁰ S.P. Ire., Eliz., xxxiii, 9.

⁵¹ Ibid., xxxvi, 46. The corporation of Dublin threatened freemen with instant disfranchisement without favour or grace (Cal. anc. rec. Dublin, ii, 71, 73), which was not often executed.

⁵² Longfield, , Anglo–Irish trade, p. 88 (but her authority mentions no judgment).Google Scholar

⁵³ Casey’s activities alone would account for the revenue from forfeitures in 1571–2 (R.I.A. Haliday MSS, Mem. rolls extracts, ff 343, 355–7, 363, 365, 403–5).

⁵⁴ The State Papers, Ireland, in the P.R.O., and the arbitrarily selected transcripts of exchequer records in the P.R.O.I. and R.I.A. The destruction of the Irish exchequer records renders impossible a definitive statement.

⁵⁵ Anal Hib., ii, 180–81 ; S.P. Ire., Eliz., liii, 55. Cf. Cal Carew MSS, 1515–74, P– 365. For corroborative evidence from the English port books, see below, p. 402.

⁵⁶ N.L.I., Harris Collectanea, v, 74; Cal. fiants Eliz., no. 3060 of 15 June 1577, which refers to the ‘negligent and corrupt dealings’ of the searchers.

⁵⁷ Cf. Cal. Carew MSS, 1589–1600, p. 223. In 1589, Auditor Peyton complained to Burghley that he had been maliciously charged with exporting prohibited commodities (Cal. S.P. Ireland., 1588–92, p. 125).

⁵⁸ Davies, M.G., The enforcement of English apprenticeship (1956)Google Scholar, esp. ch. 2; Beresford, , ‘The common informer’ in Econ. Hist. Rev., series 2, 10, 221–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Elton, G.R., Star chamber stories (1958), pp 78–113.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ H.M.C., Salisbury MSS, xiii, 609.

⁶⁰ Cal. anc. rec. Dublin, ii, 79, 91, 92, 192, S.P Ire., Eliz., ccvii, pt 2, 104.

⁶¹ Green, , Making of Ireland, pp 140–2, 145Google Scholar; O’Brien wrote of ‘a rigid blockade of Irish ports . . sometimes successfully evaded’ (Econ. hist. Ire., 17th cent., p. 70)—a complete myth.

⁶² Corbin to Cecil, 21 Mar. 1569 (S.P. Ire., Eliz., xxvii, 57). Cf. Pelham in 1580 (Cal. Carew MSS, 1575–88, p. 285) and similar references in Tudor econ. docs, ii, 126; iii, 141, 245; Quinn, D.B., Gilbert’s voyages (1940), 2, 24–8.Google Scholar

⁶³ Ibid., i, 18.

⁶⁴ For a realistic appraisal of English naval capability see Glasgow, T., ’The Elizabethan navy in Ireland’ in Irish Sword, 7 (1965–6), pp 291–307 viii (1967–8), 140–41Google Scholar. For the broader framework see Wernham, R.B., ‘Elizabethan war aims and strategy’ in Bindoff, S.T. and others (eds), Elizabethan government and society (1961), pp 367 ff.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ Hogan, J. and O’Farrell, N. McN. (eds), Walsingham letter book (1959),p. 159 Google Scholar, Cal Carew MSS, 1575–88, pp 199–200; Ir. memoranda rolls, 32 Eliz., mem. 93d (P.R.O.I., Ferguson MSS, vi, 290–91), cited in Hayman, S., New handbook for Youghal (1858), pp 23–4.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ Cal S.P Ire., 1600, pp 245, 446–7, ibid., 1601–3, pp 421, 428, P.R.O.I., Ferguson MSS, vii., 98.

⁶⁷ Cal S.P Ire., 1588–92, pp 67–8, 374, 387, 418; Bodl., Carte MS 50, ff 26–8; Cal Carew MSS, 1589–1600, pp 224, 458–9; ibid., 1601–3, pp 308–9, 323–4, 351, 436–7, 502 . Steele, , Proclamations, 2, no. 168 i, no. 999.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ Longfield, , Anglo–Irish trade, pp 42–3Google Scholar; Went, A.J., ‘Foreign fishing fleets’ in Cork Hist. Soc. Jn., series 2, 54, 17–19Google Scholar; ibid., Iviii, 18–19; Anal. Hib., x, 113; Cal. fiants Eliz., nos 3055, 3742; Walsingham letter book, p. 157; Pender, S. (ed.), Council bks, Waterford, pp 55–8.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ Cf. Green, , Making of Ireland, p. 146 Google Scholar; O’Brien, , Econ. hist. Ire., 17th cent., pp 58–9Google Scholar; Longfield, , Anglo–Irish trade, p. 80—all influenced in varying degrees by a view of the importance of industrialisation in the nation state that clouded their historical judgment. Kearney, while free of such prejudice, nevertheless seems to accept some of their opinions as factual statement (Strafford, pp 140, 143).Google Scholar

⁷⁰ Cal. Carew MSS, 1589–1600, p. 210; Morley, , Ire. under Eliz. and Jas I, p. 211 Google Scholar

⁷¹ For the yarn patent see Cal. pat. rolls, Eliz., 1569–72, p. 279, and my thesis, ch. III, which is being revised for publication as a paper. On Weston’s grant see Cal. fiants Eliz., no. 5976; Cal. pat. rolls Ire., Eliz., pp 397–8. Cf. Longfield, , Anglo–Irish trade, p. 80, which has slight errors in the date and the quantity of tallow.Google Scholar

⁷² Longfield’s generalisation, thus based on a single irrelevant example, was followed by Kearney without comment (Strafford, p. 140).

⁷³ Fenton to Cecil, Oct. 1600 (S.P. Ire., Eliz., ccvii, pt 5, p. 130). Weston was also unusual in being a protestant (Desid. cur Hib., i, 270).

⁷⁴ Berry, H.F, ‘The minute book of the corporation of Dublin, 1567–1611’ in R.I.A. Proc., 30 C, pp 489–90.Google Scholar

⁷⁵ S.P Ire., Eliz., cvi, 66. Cf. also a request for Limerick in 1590 (Cal. S.P. Ire., 1588–92, p. 374).

⁷⁶ Woodward, , Trade Eliz. Chester, pp 6–7, 11Google Scholar ; Lowe, N., Lancashire textile industry in the sixteenth century (1972), p. 14.Google Scholar Cf. also Lough, S.M., Trade and industry in Ireland in the sixteenth century ’ in Jn Pol. Econ., 24, 720 Google Scholar; Longfield, , Anglo–Irish trade, pp 222–6Google Scholar; Willan, T. S., Studies in Elizabethan foreign trade, pp 77, 83–8.Google Scholar

⁷⁷ The annual figures from the extant Chester and Liverpool portbooks are conveniently tabled by Woodward, in Trade Eliz., Chester, pp 7, 8Google Scholar; Lowe, Lanes, textile industry, ch. 2. On Chester leather manufacture see Woodward, , ‘Chester leather industry, 1558–1625’ in Hist. Soc. Lanes & Ches. Trans., 119 (1968), pp 65–111.Google Scholar Cf. the Bristol leather–workers’ petition to the queen, discussed by the privy council and Waterford merchants in 1574 (Bodl. Carte MS 55, ff 200–01; S.P Ire., Eliz., cxviii, 39). At Bristol, a glover, George Richards, was the largest individual importer of Irish sheepskins.

⁷⁸ S.P. Ire., Eliz., excix, 127. Cf. petition of the customs farmer, Oct. 1595 (S.P. Ire., Eliz., clxxxiii, 115).

⁷⁹ Cal. S.P. Ire., 1596–7, p. 341; S.P. Ire., Eliz., cxviii, 39. Wise’s candour does not convince us that the abuse he revealed was peculiar to Waterford’s naughty neighbours, Youghal, Dungarvan and Wexford. Every exporter of mortkins was suspect, many of them Waterford merchants like Simon Strange, who shipped 2250 mortkins to London in July 1588 ( Longfield, , Anglo–Irish trade, p. 75).Google Scholar Mortkins and brock–fells were rated at half the value of sheepfells.

⁸⁰ The south Wales trade fell off sharply in the 1590s (Lewis, Welsh portbooks, passim). The Bristol trade continued with annual fluctuations throughout the reign, but in the extant Bristol port books mortkins, or ‘mortkins and brocks’, outweigh the imports of ‘sheepfells’, dramatically so in the last decade (P.R.O., E. 190, 1128–15, 1129–11, 1131–5, 1131–10, 1132–8, 1133–3).

⁸¹ Kent Archives Office, Sackville MS 8705, and one of the unnumbered Sackville MSS, a royal warrant of 31 Dec. 1623 for a new book of rates.

⁸² R.I.A. Haliday MSS, Mem. rolls extracts, f. 437 (Cal anc. rec. Dublin, i, 36–7); Waterhouse to Walsingham, 27 July 1582 (S.P. Ire., Eliz., xciv, 45).

⁸³ Mayor of Dublin to Walsingham, 29 Mar. 1584 (S.P. Ire., Eliz., cviii, 69).

⁸⁴ This may, of course, simply be a terminological mirage in the case of Bristol (see n. 80 above), but in south Wales there was an absolute decline due to industrial decay ( Jenks, J.G., Welsh woollen industry, (1969), pp 107–8).Google Scholar As its cloth exports declined, so the wool exports of Pembrokeshire to the English west country grew ( Lewis, , Welsh portbooks, p. 33).Google Scholar

⁸⁵ Cal. S.P. Ire., 1596–7, pp 341, 431. In Jan. 1595 Philip Williams, formerly Perrot’s secretary, petitioned the privy council for a licence to export to England over a period of 15 years 4800 cwt of wool and, from all ports save Dublin, 600 packs of sheepskins (B. M., Lansd. MS 78, f– 54).

⁸⁶ Bodl, MS Carte 61, f. 288; Repert. pat. rolls Ire., Jas I, p. 296, Cooper to Cranfield and Low, 21 Feb. 1614 (K.A.O., Sackville MS 4185).

⁸⁷ E.g. Hen. VI granted Youghal its custom and cocket for 40 years (Cork Hist. Soc. Jn., series 2, i, 113); Edward III made a similar grant to Waterford for 10 years (Cal. pat. rolls Ire., Eliz., p. 309).

⁸⁸ See above, p. 388.

⁸⁹ Cal. pat. rolls Ire., Eliz., p. 197; Hardiman, J., Galway, 93 Google Scholar; S.P Ire., Eliz.,ccxxi, 47 1.

⁹⁰ B.M., Lansd. MS 156, f. 204. The act is only listed in Anal. Hib., x, 155, but is due to be printed for the first time in the P.R.O.I. series,, Stat. Ire. The whole question was settled in 1611 ( Davies, , Report, pp 159–84).Google Scholar

⁹¹ B.M., Lansd. MS 156, f. 204.

⁹² The patent is merely referred to in Cal. pat. rolls Ire., Henry. VIII–Eliz., pp 305–6. Cf. Davies, , Report, p. 41.Google Scholar

⁹³ B. M., Lansd. MS 156, f. 300.

⁹⁴ Cal. fiants Eliz., nos 2927, 2836, 2756. Like Waterford and (in all likelihood) similar grantees, Cork used the patent to control all customs appointments (B.M., Lansd. MS 156, ff 204, 298).

⁹⁵ Hardiman, Galway, app., pp xxvii–xxviii.

⁹⁶ Cal. fiants Eliz., nos 1781, 4816, 5334, B.M., Lansd. MS 156, f. 312. Youghal obtained the right to appoint a searcher and gauger in its charter of 1584 (Cork Hist. Soc. Jn., series 2, i, 114), but the queen had explicitly authorised only a gauger (N.L.I., Harris Collectanea, v, 95–6).

⁹⁷ See above, n. 90.

⁹⁸ B.M., Lansd. MS 156, f. 297.

⁹⁹ Ibid, f. 314; Cal fiants Eliz., no. 1503. The exercise of customs offices by civic officials was forbidden on pain of a fine of £40 for each half year by an English act of 3 Hen. VII, applied to Ireland in 1495 and invoked by the court of exchequer in 1574 in the case of a Dublin officer (R.I.A., Haliday MSS, Mem. rolls extracts, f. 385). It also appeared in the orders of 1585 (P.R.O.I., Ferguson MSS, vii, 339–43, art. 29).

¹⁰⁰ Cal fiants Eliz., nos 6057 (1597), 6349 (1599); Cal. pat. rolls Ire., Eliz., p. 456. For an explanation of these appointments, see above, n. 96.

¹⁰¹ Cal S.P Ire., 1611–14, pp 113–14; Lib. mun. pub. Hib., i, pt. 2, PP 147, 153–4; Cal. pat. rolls Ire., Jas I, p. 120. Cf. Anal. Hib., ii, 189.

¹⁰² Hore, & Graves, (eds), Southern & eastern counties, pp 272, 276.Google Scholar

¹⁰³ B.M., Lansd. MS 156, ff 204–5, 298.

¹⁰⁴ Cal. pat. rolls Ire., Hen. VIII–Eliz., p. 197.

¹⁰⁵ B.M., Lansd. MS 156, ff 204–5; N.L.I., Harris Collectanea, v, 111—12 ; Cal. fiants Eliz., no. 4316.

¹⁰⁶ Ibid., no. 1503.

¹⁰⁷ S.P Ire., Eliz., ccxxi, 47 1.

¹⁰⁸ Ibid.; Cal. fiants Edw. VI, no. 129, ibid., Eliz., nos 2420, 2847, 2859.

¹⁰⁹ Ibid., no. 5334; Anal Hib., xv, 163.

¹¹⁰ Morley, , Ire. under Eliz. & Jas I, p. 234.Google Scholar

¹¹¹ Stat. Ire., 12–22 Edw. IV, p. 377; R.I.A. Proc., 30 C, p. 493; Cal. arte. rec. Dublin, ii, 176; Cal. S.P Ire., 1574–85, pp 454, 458–9, 509. Youghal claimed a similar privilege by a charter of 1462 (Cork Hist. Soc. Jn., series 2, i, 113). For Sedgrave. Reportorium novum, i, 324–5. Perrot employed Sedgrave to import cloth from Chester in Sept. 1585 (E. 190/1325–15). For other accusations of arms smuggling by Pale merchants see Woodward, , Trade Eliz. Chester, p. 31.Google Scholar

¹¹² R.I.A., Haliday MSS, Communia rolls extracts, f. 2: Cal. anc. rec. Dublin, i, 28, 36; Cal. pat. rolls Ire., Hen. VIII–Eliz., pp 305–6. Cal. Carew MSS, 1575–88, pp 25–6; O’Sullivan, W, Econ. hist. Cork city, p. 60.Google Scholar

¹¹³ B.M., Add. MS 4786, f. 22.

¹¹⁴ Petition of 1597 (S.P. Ire., Eliz., exciv, 127; Cal. anc. rec. Dublin, ii, 318).

¹¹⁵ Cal. S.P. Ire., 1588–92, pp 67, 76, 280, 385; P.R.O.I. Ferguson MSS, vii, 263; R.I.A. Haliday MSS, Mem. rolls extracts, f. 451.

¹¹⁶ Hugh Cuffe to Carew, Aug. 1600 (Cal. S.P. Ire., 1600, pp 402–3; S.P. Ire., Eliz., ccviii, pt 2, 104 (Cal. Carew MSS, 1601–3, p. 178). For Cork’s actual application of her privilege to high commission fines see P.R.O.I., Ferguson MSS, ix, 14.

¹¹⁷ The enquiry was mooted in 1534–7 but not completed until 1592 (Cal. Carew MSS, 1575–88, pp 411, 422; Cal S.P. Ire., 1586–8, p. 320; ibid., 1592–6, p. 10).

¹¹⁸ In 1547, the cocket was leased at £52 for 19 years. On the renewal of the lease the lent was reduced to £48 16s. 8d. (Irish) which was maintained by successive leases until the reign of James I (see above, n. 108). No rent was reserved to the crown on the Kinsale lease, which was valued at only £1 13s. 40d. p.a. (R.I.Α., Rec. comm. charters, vi).

¹¹⁹ Cal fiants Eliz., no. 5071; Cal pat. rolls Ire., Jas I, p. 208.

¹²⁰ Petition of Wm Piers (1565) (S.P. Ire., Eliz., xiv, 28; Cal. fiants Eliz., nos 959, 2346, 5076: Repert. pat. rolls Ire., Jas I, p. 172). Cf. Anal. Hib, xxiv, 146.

¹²¹ According to the account of the deputy collector at Drogheda, 1560–66, without controlment (S.P Ire., Eliz. xxii, 32 11).

¹²² S.P. Ire., Eliz., xxii, 30, 31, 32, 32 1 & 11. The mayor of Drogheda again applied in vain for royal financial aid in 1591 (ibid., dix, 61).

¹²³ Cal. fiants Eliz., no. 2422. The lease was assigned to Patrick Gough, an alderman of Drogheda, who defaulted in 1578 (ibid., nos 3371, 3408).

¹²⁴ Ibid., no. 5896, Cal. pat. rolls Ire., Eliz., p. 290; Cal. pat. rolls Ire., Jas I, p. 139: Cal. S.P Ire., 1611–14, p. 55.

¹²⁵ Cal. fiants Eliz., nos 807, 3433 : R.I.Α., Haliday MSS, Mem. rolls extracts, f. 463.

¹²⁶ Lord deputv to Burghley, 4 Oct. 1595, enclosing petition of Joan Grimsditeh (S.P Ire., Eliz., clxxxiii, 72, 115); lord deputy and chief baron to Burghley, enclosing petition (S.P Ire., Eliz., clxxxviii, 46; ibid., cxc, 50). Hope of improving the lease may have been inspired by Philip William’s offer to double the rent, in Jan 1595 (B.M., Lansd. MS 78, f. 54).

¹²⁷ Cal pat. rolls Ire., Jas I, pp 102, III.

¹²⁸ S.P. Ire., Eliz., clxxxiii, 115.

¹²⁹ One Dublin merchant was alleged to pay the Chester searcher a retaining fee of 20 marks p.a. Symcott to Burghley, 13 Jan. and 10 Mar. 1575 (ibid., xlix, 38; ibid., 1,7). His enclosures of Sidney’s commission and the subsequent orders have disappeared. For two other examples of Grimsditch at work against colouring and non–entry of goods, see R.I. Α., Haliday MSS, Mem. rolls extracts, f. 387 (1572), and P.R.O.I., Ferguson MSS, vii, 332 (1582–4),

¹³⁰ Symcott to Burghley, 14 May, 24 July, 27 July, 4 Aug. 1575 (S.P. Ire., Eliz., li, 23; lii, 72, 76,, liii, 5). For a copy of the commission, see B.M., Add MS 4763, ff 258–9.

¹³¹ H.M.C., De Lisle and Dudley MSS, i, 433, refers to Phyllis, Symcott’s widow, in May 1576; Casey’s will 1575 (Ormond deeds, v. 263–4). Thrry were most likely victims not of threatened merchant violence but of the plague that swept the Pale in 1575.

¹³² R.I.A., Haliday MSS, Mem. rolls extracts, f. 435; Cal. anc. rec. Dublin, i, 36–7, ii, 121, 136, 167–8, 242–3. This accounts for the high proportion of entries in gross of Dublin merchants’ shipments from Chester Cf. Woodward, , Trade Eliz. Chester, pp 12–13, 29–30.Google Scholar

¹³³ Grey to Walsingham, 28 July 1582; mayor of Dublin to queen; to Walsingham, 28 July 1582; Loftus to Walsingham, 30 July 1582 (S.P. Ire., Eliz., xciv, 46, 51, 52, 59); Fitzsymon to Walsingham, 27 Oct. 1582 (ibid., xcvi, 33), and his petition to Burghley (1582) (ibid., xcviii, 31); Dublin petition 1597 (ibid., cxcix, 127). Cf. Woodward, , Trade Eliz. Chester, p. 30.Google Scholar

¹³⁴ R.I. A. Proc., 30 C, p. 503; Cal. anc. rec. Dublin, ii, 424, 426, 453; mayor of Dublin to lord deputy, 20 July 1606 (P.R.O.I., M. 2549); Dublin petition of 1608 (S.P. Ire., Jas I, ccxxxiii, 593), misplaced under 1615 in Cal. S.P. Ire., 1615–25, p. 118; H.M.C. Sackville MSS, i, 341.

¹³⁵ Legge to Burghley, Jan. 1585 (Cal. Carew MSS, 1575–88, pp 399–400)5 to Walsingham, 26 Apr. 1585 (S.P. Ire., Eliz., cxvi, 23): to Burghley, 21 Sept. 1587 (ibid., cxxxi, 28, 28 1); to Mildmay, 21 Sept. 1587 (S.P. 46, xxxiv, 221, 226–31, 233). In 1588, his assiduity was rewarded with £40, but not the senior exchequer post he coveted (P.R.O.I., Ferguson MSS, xix, 19; Cal. pat. rolls, Ire., Eliz., p. 378). For his involvement in the Barnaby Rich group, critical of the Irish official establishment; see Hinton, E.M., Ireland through Tudor eyes (1935), PP 57–61 86–8.Google Scholar

¹³⁶ P.R.O.I., Ferguson MSS, vii, 339–43.

¹³⁷ Ibid., articles 9, 16, 17 (Cal. anc. rec. Dublin, ii, 214, 226, 270).

¹³⁸ Cf. the preamble to the 1608 book of rates (Bodl., Univ. Coll. MS 103, ff 74–80). No evidence has been found to support F. C. Dietz’s suggestion that English goods were not liable to import duty. His remarks on .the book of rates of 1608 seem equally questionable (English public finance, 1588–1641, New York, 1932, p. 434). His confusion was apparently occasioned by the special privileges of Dublin.

¹³⁹ R.I.A., Proc, 65 C, pp 79, 83. Cf. Nicholas Fitzsymon’s proposal, 1582 (S.P. Ire., Eliz., xcviii, 29); suggested bills, 1585 (Lambeth Palace Library, Carew MS 614, f. 182; Cal. Carew MSS, 1575–88, pp 416–7).

¹⁴⁰ Bodl., Carte MS 56, f. 354; P.R.O.I. Ferguson MSS, vi, 49–52.

¹⁴¹ Ibid., vii, 339–42 (articles 22 and 23)

¹⁴² S.P., Ire., Eliz., cci, 53.

¹⁴³ Cal. Carew MSS, 1603–24, p. 174.

¹⁴⁴ Excepting the forfeitures of merchandise already noted (above, p. 396).

¹⁴⁵ Notably lord chancellors and lord treasurers. Cf. Cal. pat. rolls Ire., Hen. VIII–Eliz., pp 131, 139, 140, 164–5, 208–9, 299, 339, 343–4.

¹⁴⁶ If the customs had been a true index of the volume of traffic, a presumption which Mrs Green was too anxious to accept (Making of Ireland, p. 228), the state of Irish commerce had been parlous indeed.

¹⁴⁷ Longfield, , Anglo–Irish trade, pp 138, n. 4, 141.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁸ Cf. Wallop to Burghley, 8 Jan. 1589 (Cal S.P Ire., 1588–92, p. 107).