The Establishment of the Head Port of Gloucester, 1565-1584 Alexander Higgins A thesis submitted to the University of Bristol in accordance with the requirements of the degree of Master of Philosophy in the Faculty of Arts, Department of Historical Studies, November 2012. 24,884 words. Abstract After a fifteen-year campaign, Gloucester became an independent head port in 1580. This effectively ended Bristol’s long-standing jurisdiction over the Gloucestershire reaches of the River Severn and resulted in the loss of the greater part of Bristol’s historic port. This dissertation explores Bristol’s objections to this change and examines the prosecution of their complaints through the equity side of the Exchequer court. Primarily, this study focuses upon two commissions created by the Crown to review the case. The interrogatories and depositions produced by these commissions are used to explore the nature of this dispute, the motivation behind Bristol’s objections and why Gloucester ultimately retained its head port status. The first chapter focuses upon the practical implementation of the commissions. Rather than relying upon the legal records alone, this study uses letters, accounts and reports produced by the two parties to explore the workings of a commission. This approach reveals the extent of Bristol and Gloucester’s attempts to manipulate proceedings to their own advantage. These findings have significant implications on the impartiality of Tudor legal process and the reliability of the Exchequer records. The second chapter examines the findings of the two commissions to assess the nature and strength of Bristol’s arguments. It is shown that many of these arguments were unsubstantiated. It is suggested that although some of Bristol’s objections were economic in nature, dented pride and moral outrage also lay behind Bristol’s opposition to Gloucester’s port. In broader terms, the findings of this study reveal a great deal about how cities perceived their ports, the nature of the rivalry between port cities and how the organisation of ports affected the conduct of a region’s trade. I declare that the work in this dissertation was carried out in accordance with the Regulations of the University of Bristol. The work is original, except where indicated by special reference in the text, and no part of the dissertation has been submitted for any other academic award. Any views expressed in the dissertation are those of the author: SIGNED: ............................................................. DATE: .......................... Acknowledgements I would like to thank Dr. Evan Jones for all his support and encouragement over the last year. As my supervisor, Evan has been very generous with his time and has offered valuable feedback on early drafts of my work. Evan’s teaching in ‘The Smugglers’ City’ unit was particularly inspirational. Taking this unit as an undergraduate at the University of Bristol sparked my interest in the history of sixteenth-century Bristol, and motivated me to do further research. Margaret Condon must be thanked for her invaluable advice and kindness. My research benefitted greatly from Margaret’s expertise of the Exchequer records and her willingness to share this with me. Margaret also helped me with some of the more challenging palaeographic aspects of my work and drew my attention to details that I otherwise would have missed. I am very grateful to my fellow postgraduates – Richard Stone, Nick Weaver and James Muirhead – who have been an enormous help academically and socially. My housemates – Tom, Chris and Will – have also constantly supported me with their friendship. I owe a huge debt of gratitude to my girlfriend, Emma, for all of the love, encouragement and baked goods that have helped me to write this dissertation. Most of all, I would like to thank my family for their love and care. In particular, my parents have encouraged and supported me in all of my pursuits and I dedicate this dissertation to them. Contents Introduction 1 Chapter One: The Procedure and Implementation of the two 1583 Exchequer Commissions 9 The Commissioners of the First Commission 10 The Organisation and Implementation of the First Commission 13 The Second Commission 20 The Deponents 23 Chapter Two: The Findings of the two 1583 Exchequer Commissions 33 Threat to Bristol’s Overseas Trade 34 Insufficiency of Gloucester as a Head Port 37 The Supply of Grain 47 Allegations involving the Illicit Exportation of Grain 54 Conclusion 63 The Immediate Dispute 63 The Exchequer’s Equity Jurisdiction 68 Ports, Rivalry and the Illicit Trade 68 Appendix 1: Interrogatories and Depositions from the First Commission 73 Appendix 2: Interrogatories and Depositions from the Second Commission 131 Appendix 3: Dispute between Bristol and Gloucester customs officials, 1575 167 Appendix 4: Bristol-Gloucester Letters, 1582-3 175 Appendix 5: Gloucester’s Report of the First Commission 181 Bibliography 183 Introduction: A Dismembered Port In the summer of 1582, Bristol sent a petition to the Queen bemoaning that its ancient and historic port had been brutally ‘dismembred’.1 Without remedy, it was alleged that the ‘utter Immynent ruyn of the said Cytie’ was inevitable. Bristol’s fleet of large ships and pool of trained mariners would go into ‘decaye’ and ‘pirrotes’ would rule the Bristol Channel. If these claims were to be believed, the future of one of England’s greatest commercial cities was bleak. Fortunately for Bristol, the claims made in the 1582 petition were hyperbolic and not an accurate reflection of the city’s fortunes. It was common practice for petitioners to exaggerate their immediate need for the Crown’s favour and this petition was no exception.2 The allegation that Bristol’s port had been ‘dismembered’ related to the establishment of port authorities at Gloucester. The petition demanded that the Crown should revoke Gloucester’s head port status. Far from being an isolated complaint on behalf of Bristol, this petition was part of a campaign that lasted nearly twenty years. The first evidence of this struggle emerged in 1565 when Bristol felt it necessary to send the city’s chamberlain to the Lord Treasurer to contest Gloucester’s suit to be made a head port.3 Although Bristol succeeded on this occasion, Gloucester was appointed a member port of Bristol in 1575 and an independent head port in 1580. The submission of Bristol’s petition in 1582 marked the start of legal proceedings in the Exchequer court. After Gloucester had submitted an answer to Bristol’s petition and Bristol submitted a ‘replication’, two Exchequer commissions were granted to look into the matter. These two commissions were completed by April 1583.4 Although a hearing before the Lord Treasurer was arranged for 25th May 1584, no final decree was made by the court.5 It thus appears that the case remained without a conclusion. Gloucester maintained its head port status, which it has retained to this day. 1 E. T. Jones (ed.), ‘Bristol’s petition against the establishment of the Port of Gloucester, 1582’ (University of Bristol, ROSE, 2011). 2 For example, petitions submitted by Bristol earlier in the sixteenth century made similar claims. It was alleged that parts of the city were ‘clerely falling down, the grasse growing in the streetes’ and ‘the utter distrucion and decay of the navy of the saide towne’ was imminent: ‘A Petition from the Town of Bristol, c.1530’ and ‘Petition against the Candlemas Fair, c.1543’ in J. M. Vanes (ed.), Documents Illustrating the Overseas Trade of Bristol in the Sixteenth Century (Kendal, 1979), 28-32. 3 J. Latimer, The Annals of Bristol: In the Sixteenth Century (Bath, 1970), 44-6: E. T. Jones, Inside the Illicit Economy: Reconstructing the Smugglers' Trade of Sixteenth Century Bristol (Farnham, 2012), 168. 4 The National Archives: Public Record Office, UK [TNA:PRO], E 134/25Eliz/Hil3 [Appendix 1]: E 134/25Eliz/East14 [Appendix 2]. 5 It would appear from an entry made in the Bristol Mayor’s Audit Books that a rehearing had been anticipated a few days after this initial hearing. This hearing did not occur though and there is no record of further orders, decrees or commissions being issued by the Exchequer in relation to this case. The 1 When the length of the dispute and the permanence of its outcome are considered, it is surprising that this matter has attracted little scholarly attention. The notable exception to this is Evan Jones’ examination of the pleadings produced by each side at the start of the Exchequer case.6 Jones transcribed and published Bristol’s 1582 petition, Gloucester’s answer and Bristol’s subsequent replication.7 Using these documents, he explored the arguments put forward by both sides and identified the key strengths and weaknesses in Bristol’s case against Gloucester’s head port status. In particular, Jones highlighted the implausibility of Bristol’s claims that Gloucester’s port seriously hampered Bristol’s overseas trade. Port book evidence showed that Gloucester’s overseas trade was one hundredth the size of Bristol’s.8 Furthermore, Gloucester imported few continental wares such as wine, iron and salt and it was these trades that were central to Bristol’s overseas trade. In light of this, Jones suggested that the root of Bristol’s objections could be better explained by the illicit trading interests of Bristol’s merchants. The division of customs authorities would have increased the risk and cost of smuggling because there were two sets of officials to bribe or bypass instead of one. Jones also suggested that the establishment of a head port at Gloucester increased the opportunities for Gloucester merchants to engage in illicit trade of their own. This would have allowed them to compete with Bristol’s well established merchant- smugglers’ illicit grain trade. However, Jones’ investigation is based mainly upon the pleadings submitted by each party at the start of the Exchequer case.