Linen industry in Ireland, 1500-1660

Linen industry in Ireland, 1500-1660

Niall C.E.J. O’Brien

Introduction 

Flax is one of the oldest known crops. As early as 5,000 BC flax was woven in Egypt to form linen. Their mummies were wrapped in linen before being placed in the tomb. Jesus of Nazareth was wrapped in linen cloths when he was placed in the tomb.[1] Although flax is sometimes grown for its beauty, the most important species, of the about 100 different species of flax, is grown for its seed and to make fibre. The ancient Greeks wore linen clothing while the Romans used it to make linen paper. The use of linen gradually spread across Europe.[2]

It is said that flax harvested in late summer makes the best linen. The flax is first pulled and tied into bundles to dry in the sun. The stalks are then passed through a course comb to remove the seeds. Retting is the next process where the flax is kept moist for two or three weeks. This can be done in a field or in a slow moving river or stream. If the flax is placed in a stream the time is about one or two weeks. The retting allows bacteria and the moisture to decompose the flax fibres. The area around modern-day Belgium became particularly well known for linen production as the chemicals in the Leie River helped greatly in the retting of the flax. After retting, the flax is left to dry out. The fibres are then separated into long or sort fibres. The fibres are then spun into linen yarn.[3] 

Early flax and linen in Ireland

The earlier history of flax production in Ireland is poorly documented and still less understood. Flax seeds have been discovered at archaeological sites as early as the Bronze Age. It has been suggested that flax was grown as a fibre crop in early prehistory but the evidence is hard to come by. This is because the detection of flax pollen is difficult as it usually exists in extremely low values. Even research at a nineteenth century farm where flax was known to have been grown, the pollen samples produced very little in the way of flax pollen.

It is said that the idea of growing flax to make linen was introduced into Ireland from Roman Britain. Evidence of flax seeds has been found at early medieval sites at Carraig Aille and Deer Park Farms.[4] The Irish word for linen, lin comes from the Latin word linum which seems to confirm the idea of its introduction from the Roman world. Although in the Ireland before the Vikings and the Normans, stock raising and dairying dominated the agricultural scene there was still plenty of room for arable crops. The Gaelic laws recount ploughing to grow flax while the archaeological finds show the domestic importance of linen production. Spinning and weaving appear to have been performed by the housewife with the farmer growing a small patch of flax.[5]

Flax and linen production seem to have continued into the later medieval period but a full study of the medieval Irish economy is still to be written to assess the level of linen production. In 1360 John de Knaresborough, attorney for Lady Elizabeth de Burgh, was robbed as he crossed Ormond in north Tipperary as he made his way out of Connacht. Among the items stolen were ten ells of linen cloth worth 40 pence.[6] This article will examine the flax and linen industry in Ireland from 1500 to 1650.

In the Ireland of the 1530s there was a considerable amount of spinning and weaving of wool and linen within the Pale area. There were also substantial quantities of English cloth finished in the Pale area. Yet there was no extensive domestic manufacture compared to other parts of Western Europe. 

In other parts of Ireland the evidentiary sources are not extensive enough to get a picture of the manufacture industries. There are records of a considerable export trade in hides, course cloths and linen along with other products such as sheep-skins and furs.[7] 

Flax drying out

Irish linen trade at Bristol in sixteenth century

Foreign writers attested to the great abundance of linen in Ireland and said that “Ireland abounds in lint which the natives spin into thread and export in enormous quantities to foreign nations”.[8] See appendix one for the trade in Irish linen at the port of Bristol for various years in the sixteenth century.

In the first half of the sixteenth century a number of instances are recorded where linen was exported from the port of Cork to Bristol and Plymouth. As William O’Sullivan remarked this “refutes the oft quoted myth, that the manufactured of linen was unknown in Ireland till it was introduced by Ormond and Strafford in the seventeenth century”.[9]

The trade figures in appendix one (below) shows that Waterford was the principal port of export for Irish linen to Bristol, followed by New Ross. There was also a considerable trade from undocumented Irish ports which could have been Cork, New Ross, Waterford or some other port. There are few records of flax been imported into these ports and so the linen exported must have been from locally produced flax. In contrast, Dungarvan and Youghal imported flax from Bristol, which would suggest that not much, if any, flax was grown in the neighbourhood of those port towns. Youghal also imported linen on a few occasions. The Bristol figures also show that linen from Britany was firstly imported into Ireland, possibly on ships bringing wine from Spain or Bordeaux, and then re-exported to Bristol.  

Home trade 

Alice Stopford Green wrote that “Linen was sold on the stalls of every Irish market, and was carried aboard; and flax was grown in every part of Ireland from North to South ... In former ages they manufactured very extensively linen cloths, the greater portion … was absorbed by the home consumption, as the natives allowed thirty or more yards for a single cloak”.[10]

Acts of Parliament on linen

In 1539 it was enacted that no more than seven yards of linen could be used to make any shirt.[11] The Irish made little movement to obey this law and up to 1566 the Irish natives continued to use up to thirty or more yards of linen to make a single cloak with sleeves extending down to the knees.[12]

In 1541 the then Irish Parliament passed an Act restricting the sale of linen and woollen cloth to fairs and markets.[13] This was followed in 1569 when the Irish Parliament passed an Act for keeping wool, flax and tallow in Ireland. This measure seems to be for the development of these industries within Ireland. The export of flax would certainly reduce the ability to develop a linen industry export of its chief raw material would inhibit growth. A further bill against the loding of wool and flax was changed from a felony to an augmentation of the customs.[14]

In 1569 such was the widespread extent of the linen industry that fishermen complained that the processing of the flax in the rivers and streams was affecting the fish. Therefore it was forbidden to water hemp, flax or limed hides in running streams.[15] 

In 1571 Sir John Perrot, Lord President of Munster, made a proclamation of a number of laws and ordinances to be observed across the province. One of these concerned the dress and appearance of people living in cities or corporate towns. They were not to wear mantles or Irish coats or great skirts or let their hair grow long. The women were not to wear any great roll or kercher of linen cloth on their heads but to put on hats, caps or French hoods.[16] This would suggest that Irish women of the time wore a roll of linen cloth on their heads.

The John West linen patent 

In 1572, John West, an English bureaucrat with aristocratic connections, obtained the licence for regulating the export of linen-yard.[17] The granting of trade licences to private individuals or groups was said to be a means of encourage trade and the development of industry. More often it was a way for the government to earn easy money while leaving the interaction with the complaining public something for the licensee to deal with.

For us in 2015 trying to determine the linen industry of late sixteenth century the patent granted to John West is problematical. The trouble is the patent wipes out any trade figures. The government got a fixed payment from John West every year. In 1621 this payment was about £140.[18] Once the government got its money, it was up to John West to recoup the money from the linen trade. There was no need for John West to file any trade figures for his activity with the government and it is not known if he kept any. Thus no trade figures are available for us to determine the size and location of the linen industry.

Wars and the linen trade

We presume that the industry was active across the country but a series of wars between 1570 and 1603 would seriously impact upon whatever industry was there below the surface of John West’s patent. War impacted upon the Munster economy in 1569-1571 and again 1579-1583 with famine and death in its wake. Some recovery was made after 1583 but this was wiped out in 1597 to 1601 when the Nine Years War occupied Munster.

In these years’ linen continued to be exported from the ports along the east and north coasts but only for a short while. The Nine Years War began in Ulster in 1595 and in short time almost dried up the linen trade. A government report said that the Irish ‘rebels’ of the north were known to have a “great commodity of yarn which formerly they have traded into England but now they reserve it to exchange for munition”.[19]

By 1600 the Irish linen industry had reached a low ebb. The patent granted to John West restricted all other exporters to engage in an illegal trade, and, as such, the trade figures no longer record linen exports in the same open fashion as before. This can be seen in the Bristol port figures where Irish linen imports were not recorded for the second half of the sixteenth century. The size or extent of the illegal trade is not known. The Elizabethan wars did not help the industry and seriously restricted all peace time activity. On the high seas English pirates suffered the peaceful passage of all Irish export trade.[20]

Early seventeenth century revival

The Elizabethan wars ended by 1603 and thoughts were turned towards the rebuilding of the Irish economy. In 1604 it was proposed that flax should be sown in great quantities, which “the soil of the country is apt to yield in great plenty, and let the same be spun and woven … whereby the people may be set to work”, so that in a short time Ireland should have a linen industry to rival those of Spain and the Low Countries.[21]

On 28^th January 1609 the articles of agreement between King James and the Mayor and the Commonalty of London on the plantation of Londonderry in Ulster was published. One provision of this agreement was that the Londonderry Company was not to allow the exportation of flax, hemp and unwoven yarn from Derry and Coleraine without licence.[22] One of the motives offered to the London Company for the plantation of Ulster was “that Ulster would furnish the requisites of thread, linen cloth and stuffs made of linen yard”.[23]

This last point would have little meaning unless Ulster had a previous track record of growing flax and exporting linen and linen yarn. In short time the growing of flax became the second only to oats in the non-pastoral products of the Ulster economy. The flax was a good economic activity for the small holdings across the province. The spinning of the linen yarn was done in the home, mainly by women and young children. Afterwards the middlemen carried the linen in considerable quantities to the ports of Derry, Coleraine, Carrickfergus, Dundalk and Drogheda to Chester and Liverpool. From there the linen was sent to Lancashire and the Manchester area in particular to be mixed with cotton to form fustian cloths. In this entire linen trade the new Scottish settlers of Ulster acted as the middlemen but the vast majority of the linen production was in Irish hands – it was only the control of the economy that had changed.[24]

On 23^rd August 1609 a grand inquisition was held at Dungannon where it was found that in the dioceses of Armagh, Clogher and Derry the tithes on wool, fish, corn and flax were paid in kind.[25]

On 3^rd September 1611 Sir Humphrey Wynche (then Chief Justice of Ireland) wrote to the Earl of Salisbury that he had received from the Chief Baron in Ireland a grant to Sir Edward Blunt and William Bryten for the exportation of 1,200 packs of linen yarn yearly out of Ireland for ten years. This grant was first given in 1606. There were two other patents for the exportation of linen yarn in operation at the same time. One of these was held by John West and the other by two servants of Lord Deputy Chichester. Sir Humphrey was not pleased with these patents and wanted Salisbury to refer them to someone with knowledge of the linen industry.[26]

The Irish Parliament of 1613 was supposed to enact legislation to encourage the sowing of “hemp and flax and for making linen cloth” but the Act was never passed.[27]

In 1613 the Recusants of the 1613 Irish Parliament objected to the private profit by a few individuals who had licence to export certain prohibited commodities (including corn and linen) from Ireland. The Recusants wanted the statutes which restricted the exportation to be suspended and allow trade to increase. They judged that the King would benefit from increased revenues and customs. Lord Deputy Chichester replied that the patent to export linen granted to Sir Edward Blunt and William Bryten and the patent granted to John West had some years still to run (3 and 21 years respectively) and should be left to run their term.[28]

On 27^th June 1614 King James directed a letter to Lord Deputy Chichester to publish a proclamation for the free exportation of all wares and merchandises from any Irish port except linen yarn. For this free exportation people only had to pay the due custom rate and nothing more.[29] On 11^th February 1615 Lord Deputy Chichester wrote to Secretary Winwood that he had published the proclamation for the free export of most native commodities as directed by a recent letter of King James. The exception to this proclamation was the commodities of linen, yarn, wool and woollen yarn.[30]

Later in the reign of James I the laws restricting the export of linen were somewhat lifted but not in any great measure. Still the linen industry within Ireland slowly advanced. The Earl of Cork encouraged the development of the linen industry at Bandon and Youghal.[31]

Linen weaving in the home

The 1622 Irish Commission and linen

In May and June 1621 the English Parliament convened an official committee of enquiry into the affairs of Ireland. This committee examined many items including the various trade licences. The committee recommended that some trade licences should be revoked while others should the subject of greater regulation by the Lord Deputy and the Irish Council. On the linen yard export licence the committee recommended that the licence should complete the seven or eight years left in the term of the licence and not be renewed thereafter.[32]

This would place the end of the linen yard export licence in about 1628. In that year an Irish Parliament was promised to remove public grievances, particularly among the Catholic population. In the event this parliament was never called and the numerous trade licences that were to end their term in 1628 were renewed under a provisional licencing scheme.[33] Thus despite many attempts to displace him, John West retained the licence until 1636.[34]

On 16^th June 1621 a report on the state of Ireland was presented by Irish officials to the English administration. Item seven in the part of the report concerning grants from the crown referred to linen yard industry. It said there were several Acts of Parliament made in Ireland in the time of Queen Elizabeth for the restraining of linen yarn within Ireland so that “many poor and idle people might be set to work”. The crown also hoped that the customs on the linen yarn would add to the royal revenues. To help the industry it was enacted that nobody could export the raw yarn unless he paid more tax than the value of the yarn.

Only one person had a dispensation from his latter imposition and could export linen yarn but he was later subject to a charge of 13s 4d on every pack even though his patent allowed for the export free of charge subject to a rent of 200 marks per year. In 1621 the crown took 40s on every pack exported. The Irish officials recommended that this be cut by half. The grantee had a few more years to run on his patent but the Irish officials recommended that no extension to the patent should be made or a new patent granted. The officials believed that by opening the right of export to everyone it would encourage more people to sow more hemp and flax than current levels.

King James replied that the patent should run its seven or eight year course and then be ended with no new grant. After the expiration of the grant the crown would take 20s on every pack where it only took one mark in 1621.[35] It is not clear how the 40s per pack entered the equation. Before April 1622 London wrote to the Dublin administration that there was no immediate action to be taken regarding the linen yarn patent but to let it run its unexpired years.[36]

On 14^th May 1622 the Irish Commission met to discuss the grants from the crown for certain industries in Ireland. On the transportation of linen yarn they noted that the patent granted to John West should not be renewed but were undecided if the king should charge 20s per pack or 40s per pack (as charged in 1622) after the present patent had expired. They saw the charge of 40s a means of restraining the export of the raw linen yarn while the free transport of flax would encourage both the extra growing of hemp and flax and the development of the processing industry for the flax. The middle course of 20s per pack was seen as the bet option.[37]

Sir William Parson recommended that the present patent be surrendered and that John West, the holder, be paid compensation out of the English exchequer. The Irish Commissioners in their 1623 report agreed with compensation out of the English exchequer.[38] Thomas Carew said that the patent was a grievance because it was only a dispensation of the penal laws (11 Elizabeth). He said the king was content to take 20s and that should be that. Sir William Jones agreed to this statement adding that the patent was illegal and that all who presently transported yarn were felons.[39]

The Commission were anxious to settle the matter as not to do so would “make a fraud of this commodity, if it be not transported”.[40] The Lord Chancellor said that flax would come out of England and into Ireland if the Irish transportation was restrained. At that time there were about 300 people guilty of transporting flax without licence. A general pardon of all named individuals by the Lord’s Justice was recommended and this to be done without notices so as to avoid any challenge to legality.[41] 

The Commission noted that a pack of yarn was then worth £30 and the ordinary custom on same was 30s.[42]

A further document prepared by the Irish Commission said that the continuation of the linen patent was a cause of complaint from Ireland. The Commissioners noted that the Act of Parliament of Ireland 11 Elizabeth cap. 10 was to keep the Irish people from idleness and to encourage them to invest their work in various commodities including linen. The Act also hoped to encourage English artificers to come to Ireland and to aid the growth of industry. It was noted that all linen yarn exported had a custom rate of 12d sterling for every pound of flax or linen yarn and that 8d was due as custom to each port town where the linen was exported. These charges were to encourage raw flax and linen yarn to stay in Ireland.[43] 

The Act of Parliament 13 Elizabeth cap. 4 stated that if any linen yarn was shipped or carried away before all customs due were paid then such be forfeited with one half to the crown and the other to the person who espied it. It was further enacted that any person exporting linen without paying the custom was a felon along with his assistants and associates.[44] The Commissioners noted that the granting of the linen patent to John West frustrated the intention of the various Parliamentary Acts and restricted the customs dues to the crown. Particularly they cited that the patent discourage the development of the linen processing industry in Ireland. The Commissioners recommended ending the patent and encourage the people to process the linen yarn into cloth.[45]

These opinions were repeated by the Irish Commissioners in their report on the trade and commerce of Ireland in which they said that the export licence of linen yarn granted to John West was against the statutes of Ireland. Instead they said that if woollen yarn and linen yarn were kept in Ireland and there processed into cloth it would give work to the people along with increased shipping and further trade and commerce and increased custom revenues.[46]

In the report prepared by the Irish Commissioners of 1621 on the revenue of Ireland it said that £138 6s 8d per year was received in rents on the patent concerning the transportation of linen yarn. The total amount of rent received per year from the various patents was £470 13s 4d and so the linen patent made up nearly 30% of the total amount.[47] Yet this amount of £138 6s 8d is at slight variance with the amounts paid into the revenue between 1615 and 1621. These accounts show that £133 6s 8d was paid every year on the transportation of linen yarn.[48]

The report on exports of Ireland between March 1621 and March 1622, prepared for the Irish Commissioners gives the following information concerning the exportation of linen yarn. The following ports exported packs of linen yarn according to volume, viz.: Drogheda (431), Dublin (93), Dundalk (37), Galway (25), Carlingford (23), Carrickfergus (11), Cork (2), Kinsale (1), Waterford (1), Lecale & Clandebois (1) [both in Co. Down].[49]

Among the survey reports on the various plantations, particularly those in Ulster, the names of a few weavers appear. Around Lurgan in Co. Armagh, in 1622, there lived John Robinson, Leonard Rigge and William Nicholson, all weavers with a house, a few acres and a twenty-one year lease from William Brownlow, the landlord.[50] It is not clear if these weavers were working with wool or linen or maybe both. The Brownlow family were noted in later times for developing a well renowned linen industry in the Lurgan area. In County Tyrone there lived around Benburb John Penlington, weaver and John Brook, cloth-worker, tenants of Richard, Lord Viscount Powerscourt.[51] Lord Castlestewart had among his tenants in County Tyrone, James McCreagh and James Dalrimpill, both weavers.[52]

In 1628 article 11 of the document known as the Graces called for the free transportation of linen yarn but this was denied.[53]

Spinning wheels for the home

Irish linen in the 1630s

In 1632 Richard Hadsor, one of the King’s Council for Irish Affairs, wrote a list of propositions to King Charles for the improvement of the army in Ireland and an increase in the royal revenue. Richard Hadsor mentioned the act of Queen Elizabeth which banned the exportation of linen yarn under severe penalties. Hadsor said this was to encourage the development of the linen industry in Ireland and encourage Englishmen to go to Ireland aid aid the industry. But Hadsor recommended that a tenth pack of each linen yarn should be allowed to be worked in any inland town and be exported by responsible merchants because the laws were too restrictive.[54]

Lord Deputy Wentworth and linen

On 21^st June 1636 Lord Deputy Wentworth wrote to the King on the economic affairs of Ireland. Lord Deputy Wentworth found that, where the people were apt for work and the land suitable, flax was planted. Soon the local people were spinning linen. The Lord Deputy recommended that those seeking an answer to defective titles would plant a small portion of their land with flax thereby adding to the economy of Ireland and England.[55]

The motives of Lord Deputy Wentworth to encourage the linen industry had the desire to increase the royal revenue but it was also to advance the linen industry at the expense of the woollen industry so that the latter would not injure the English woollen trade. Lord Deputy Wentworth observed “that the soil of Ireland was very fit for bearing the flax; and that the women were all naturally bred to spinning: and therefore resolved to put them upon making of linen cloths”. The Lord Deputy also saw the advancement of the linen industry as a way to attack France, the old enemy. He noted that the Irish labour market was cheaper than the French labour market and so Irish linen could undersell the cloths of Holland and France by “at least twenty in the hundred”.[56] 

In 1608 a document recorded the rates of wages of artificers, labourers and household servants. A number of references to the wages of weavers appear in this document. A weaver should have for every weaver slatt containing three market slats, 4 pence and 8 quarts of meal. For every such slatt of eight or nine hundred, 4 pence and 8 quarts of meal. A weaver who made a mantle got 3 pence and 20 gallons of meal and a best caddowe was worth 4 pence while weaving a jerkin cloth gave 2 pence.[57]

To aid the linen industry Wentworth sent for flax seed from Holland (as it was said to be better than the Irish seed) and also brought in weavers from Holland and France. The latter action seems to be against his idea of using cheap Irish labour to undermine the other countries but then politicians were always noted for saying one thing and doing the opposite. Yet the flax seed was sown and the looms purchased and the linen industry, which was of importance in the sixteenth century, was set for a new beginning. Regulations were introduced to ensure the quality the yarn and cloth. To further encourage the industry, Wentworth invested thirty thousand pounds of his own money.[58]

Irish linen in the 1640s

The linen industry did indeed grow. In 1640 £1,000 was earned in custom revenue for the licence of linen yarn.[59] In the year ending March 1641 2,297 hundredweight of linen yarn was exported but no linen cloth. This may be because of a complaint in the Irish House of Lords where it was said that “many thousand hundredweight of linen yarn and great quantities of linen cloth had been confiscated by force from the poor people for want of breath and a proper number of threads”.[60]

In May 1641 the Irish Committee wanted to tax linen yarn worth 20 marks per pack 13s 4d.[61] Governments usually don’t tax things unless there is good economic activity. Towards the end of the period discussed by this article we learn in 1649 that white hamborrow linen, which was ¾ yard wide, was worth 12 pence per ell and that brown linen of the same width was worth 13 pence. The same report said that fine canvas was worth 10 pence and course canvas 5 pence. Canvas for sailing vessels was often made of linen.[62]

Yet Wentworth’s effort to build a linen industry on the back of the existing domestic linen industry has been judged by many to be a failure. Lack of investment capital and the need to import skilled labour were two restrictions to development but the size of the Irish economy was possibly the biggest stumbling block. Only the large port towns had a sufficient population of wealth to purchase the linen produced but the practice in these towns was to import their luxury requirements rather than trade in the hinterland.[63]

The linen industry was also under pressure from a poor connection between the market place and the industry along with illegal practice and corruption. In June 1635 Lord Deputy Wentworth had to issue a proclamation concerning the linen trade. The proclamation took issue with the narrowness of the breadth of the linen cloth made in Ireland which was out of step with what was demanded in other countries. Therefore Irish linen received poor profit returns from the market place and was even just plain difficult to sell. The proclamation therefore declared that from 1^st February 1636 all linen cloth had to be three quarters of a yard in breadth unless the linen was intended for towels or napkins. Anyone who broke this proclamation in Leinster was to appear before the Court of the Castle Chamber and before the President’s Court in Munster and Connacht while any offenders in Ulster were to appear before a special committee appointed by the King.

The 1635 proclamation was also concerned with the way merchants brought the linen from the manufacturers. The merchants used Ban-laws and slat and various other “uncertain measures” to fool the manufacturers (to the deceit of the subject” said the proclamation) in the price they should get for their product. Therefore it was proclaimed that clerks of the markets should strictly “do their duties in enquiring after the abuse”. It was also proclaimed that in future all linen should be sold “by the just ell and yard and by no other measure”.[64]  

But a greater challenge faced the linen industry than government regulations and the size of the Irish economy. In October 1641 rebellion, or civil war, or a war of independence broke out, depending on your political views. After the initial bloodletting of the opening weeks the war entered a quiet few weeks. The government thought that the worst was over and took dispositions from those who had lost property with a few to compensation. But the war was far from over and dragged on until 1653. The Irish linen industry, which entered the 1630s with such high hopes of reliving the better years of the sixteenth century, collapsed under the pressures of war. In 1656 the government allowed all persons to export linen yarn from Ireland free of custom duties to England, Wales and Scotland in an effort to encourage the linen trade.[65] This measure was long petitioned by various people over the previous decades but without success. Now its granting in 1656 was like closing the stable door after the horse had bolted. The measure was unsuccessful as there was no linen industry left to take advantage of free exportation. The later revival of the linen industry in the seventeenth century is a story for another day.

Linen trade down but not out

Of course flax growing and linen production were not totally wiped out after the war. People still grew flax and made linen for domestic needs and local consumption but there was little surplus linen for trading in the open market. In about 1650 a number of weavers are listed on a census record. These were James Nolan of Blundelstown, Melaghlen Heily of Butterfield, Walter Smith of Tallaght, John Long of Ballydowde, Richard Donehowe of Lucan, Peter Donoghoe and Hugh Jordan, both of Rowlagh; Dermott Ryan of Newgrange, Murrogh McEgownie of Palmerstown and Donogh Taere of Shanakill. All these places were situated in the Baronies of Uppercross and Newcastle, Co. Dublin.[66]

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Rena Maguire of Q.U.B. and Kieran Groeger of Youghal for help with this article.

Appendix one

Irish exports of linen cloth to Bristol

Cork 1^st March 1504 = 1 quarter of a hundred units of 100 ells each [67]

Drogheda 20^th December 1516 = 6½ hundred units of 100 ells each[68]

Dublin 26^th January 1526 = 280 yards[69]

Malahide 19^th March 1517 = 53 yards[70]

New Ross 24^th July 1504 = 27 yards[71]

New Ross 12^th November 1516 = 5 hundred units of 100 ells each plus 100 yards[72]

New Ross 18^th July 1517 = 95 yards[73]

New Ross 29^th January 1526 = 1 hundred units of 100 ells each [74]

New Ross 4^th March 1546 = 1 hundred units of 100 ells each [75]

Port unknown 3^rd October 1503 = 12 hundred units of 100 ells each plus 24 yards and 1 quarter[76]

Port unknown 24^th July 1504 = 6 hundred units of 100 ells each [77]

Port unknown 1^st December 1516 = 2 hundred units of 100 ells each [78]

Port unknown 15^th May 1517 = 7 hundred units of 100 ells each [79]

Port unknown 12^th August 1517 = 1 hundred units of 100 ells each [80]

Port unknown 11^th December 1525 = 1 hundred units of 100 ells each [81]

Port unknown 2^nd January 1526 – 170 yards[82]

Port unknown 26^th January 1526 = 30 yards[83]

Port unknown 20^th April 1526 = 1 hundred weight of thread, Irish linen[84]

Port unknown 2^nd July 1526 = 1 hundred units of 100 ells each [85]

Port unknown 16^th July 1526 = 60 yards[86]

Port unknown 16^th July 1526 = 30 yards[87]

Port unknown 21^st July 1526 = 1 hundred units of 100 ells each [88]

Port unknown 27^th July 1526 = 5 hundred units of 100 ells each [89]

Port unknown 21^st July 1542 = 6 hundred units of 100 ells each [90]

Port unknown 23^rd July 1542 = 4½ hundred units of 100 ells each [91]

Port unknown 15^th August 1543 = 10 hundred units of 100 ells each [92]

Port unknown 17^th December 1545 = 80 yards[93]

Port unknown 20^th January 1546 = 1½ hundred units of 100 ells each [94]

Port unknown 15^th July 1546 = 1 hundred units of 100 ells each [95]

Port unknown 20^th July 1546 = 40 yards[96]

Waterford 4^th October 1503 = 13 hundred units of 100 ells each plus 100 yards[97]

Waterford 27^th February 1504 = 1 hundred units of 100 ells each [98]

Waterford 25^th June 1504 = 3 hundred units of 100 ells each plus 44 yards[99]

Waterford 9^th November 1516 = 24 yards[100]

Waterford 6^th July 1517 = 50 yards[101]

Waterford 17^th July 1517 = 2 hundred units of 100 ells each [102]

Waterford 28^th January 1526 = 2 hundred units of 100 ells each [103]

Waterford 11^th April 1526 = 1 hundred units of 100 ells each [104]

Waterford 16^th July 1526 = half hundred units of 100 ells each [105]

Waterford 17^th October 1541 = 90 yards[106]

Waterford 24^th October 1541 = 6½ hundred units of 100 ells each [107]

Waterford 3^rd April 1542 = 60 yards[108]

Waterford 13^th May 1542 = 40 yards[109]

Waterford 15^th July 1542 = quarter hundred units of 100 ells each plus 80 yards[110]

Waterford 22^nd October 1542 = 46 yards[111]

Waterford 23^rd July 1543 = 40 yards[112]

Waterford 22^nd October 1545 = 6½ hundred units of 100 ells each [113]

Waterford 23^rd October 1545 = 8 hundred units of 100 ells each [114]

Waterford 23^rd October 1545 = 6 hundred units of 100 ells each plus 80 yards[115]

Waterford 3^rd March 1546 = half hundred units of 100 ells each [116]

Waterford 5^th March 1546 = 9 hundred units of 100 ells each [117]

Waterford 20^th July 1546 = 3½ hundred units of 100 ells each [118]

Waterford 21^st July 1546 = 23 hundred units of 100 ells each plus 70 yards[119]

Wexford 20^th July 1546 = 40 yards[120]

Possible Irish linen cloth exported to Bristol

Waterford 29^th March 1546 = 4 hundred units of 100 ells each plus 40 yards[121]

Waterford 24^th July 1546 = 5½ hundred units of 100 ells each [122]

Irish linen yarn exported to Bristol

Port unknown 26^th January 1526 = half hundred units of 100 ells each [123]

Linen cloth re-exported from Ireland to Bristol

Port unknown 19^th February 1504 = 2 hundred units of 100 ells each Britany linen cloth[124]

Port unknown 7^th March 1504 = 1½ hundred units of 100 ells each Britany linen cloth[125]

Waterford 25^th June 1504 = 35 yards Breton linen cloth[126]

Waterford 30^th August 1504 = half hundred units of 100 ells each Britany linen cloth[127]

Irish linen re-exported out of Bristol to third country

Bristol to Portugal 28^th July 1526 = 2 hundred units of 100 ells each Irish linen cloth[128]

Possible linen cloth exports

Waterford 4^th June 1526 = 15 yards Irish canvas cloth[129]

Linen cloth export from Bristol to Ireland

Youghal 4^th March 1542 = 20 yards[130]

Youghal 7^th February 1543 = 240 yards[131]

Flax export from Bristol to Ireland

Cork 2^nd March 1543 = 19½ dozen of flax[132]

Cork 12^th March 1543 = 11½ dozen of flax[133]

Dungarvan 6^th February 1543 = 80lbs of flax[134]

Dungarvan 16^th February 1543 = 20lbs of flax[135]

Youghal 7^th February 1543 = 12lb of flax plus 1 dozen (Trinity ship) & 12lbs plus 2 dozen (Christopher ship)[136]

Youghal 9^th February 1543 = 2½ dozen of flax plus 1 stone of flax[137]

Youghal 10^th February 1543 = 1 dozen flax[138]

Youghal 11^th February 1543 = 18lbs of flax[139]

Flax exported from Bristol to unknown place

Bristol 28^th August 1543 = 3½ dozen of flax[140]

==================

End of post

=================

---

[1] John 20:6

[2] David E. Zimmer, ‘Flax’, in The World Book Encyclopaedia (Chicago, 1981), vol. 7, p. 205

[3] Ernest R. Kaswell, ‘Linen’, in The World Book Encyclopaedia (Chicago, 1981), vol. 12, p. 294

[4] Valerie A. Hall, ‘The Historical and Palynological evidence for flax cultivation in Mid Co. Down’, in the Ulster Journal of Archaeology, Vol. 52 (1989), p. 5; Nancy Edwards, ‘The archaeology of early medieval Ireland, c.400-1169’, in A New History of Ireland, vol. 1: Prehistoric and Early Ireland, edited by Dáibhí O Cróinin (Oxford University Press, 2008), pp. 272, 273

[5] Donnchadh O Corrain, ‘Ireland c.800: aspects of society’, in A New History of Ireland, vol. 1: Prehistoric and Early Ireland, edited by Dáibhí O Cróinin (Oxford University Press, 2008), p. 568

[6] Paul Dryburgh & Brendan Smith (eds.), Handbook and Select Calendar of Sources for Medieval Ireland in the National Archives of the United Kingdom (Four Courts Press, Dublin, 2005), p. 306

[7] D.B. Quinn & K.W. Nicholls, ‘Ireland in 1534’, in A new History of Ireland, vol. 3: Early modern Ireland 1534-1691, edited by T.W. Moody, F.X. Martin & F.J. Byrne (Oxford University Press, 2009), p. 34

[8] George O’Brien, The economic history of Ireland in the Seventeenth Century (Maunsel, Dublin, 1919), p. 76

[9] William O’Sullivan, The economic history of Cork City from the earliest times to the Act of Union (Cork University Press, 1937), p. 77

[10] George O’Brien, The economic history of Ireland in the Seventeenth Century, p. 76

[11] 33 Henry VIII, c. 2

[12] George O’Brien, The economic history of Ireland in the Seventeenth Century, pp. 76, 77

[13] Bernadette Cunningham (ed.), Calendar of State Papers Ireland, Tudor period, 1566-1567 (Irish Manuscripts Commission, Dublin, 2009), no. 117

[14] Bernadette Cunningham (ed.), Calendar of State Papers Ireland, Tudor period, 1568-1571 (Irish Manuscripts Commission, Dublin, 2010), nos. 353, 356

[15] Bernadette Cunningham (ed.), Calendar of State Papers Ireland, Tudor period, 1568-1571 (Irish Manuscripts Commission, Dublin, 2010), no. 353

[16] J.S. Brewer & William Bullen (eds.), Calendar of the Carew Manuscripts preserved in the Archiepiscopal library at Lambeth (6 vols. Kraus reprint, 1974), vol. 1 (1515-1574), p. 411

[17] Victor Treadwell, Buckingham and Ireland 1616-1628: A Study in Anglo-Irish Politics (Four Courts Press, Dublin, 1998), p. 92

[18] Victor Treadwell (ed.), The Irish Commission of 1622: An investigation of the Irish Administration 1615-22 and its Consequences 1623-24 (Irish Manuscripts Commission, Dublin, 2006), p. 319

[19] R.A. Butlin, ‘Land and people, c.1600’, in A new History of Ireland, vol. 3: Early modern Ireland 1534-1691, edited by T.W. Moody, F.X. Martin & F.J. Byrne, p. 164

[20] George O’Brien, The economic history of Ireland in the Seventeenth Century, p. 77

[21] Rev. Charles W. Russell & John P. Prendergast (eds.), Calendar of the State Papers relating to Ireland of the reign of James I (5 vols. Kraus reprint, 1974), vol. 1 (1603-1606), p. 135

[22] Rev. Charles W. Russell & John P. Prendergast (eds.), Calendar of the State Papers relating to Ireland of the reign of James I (5 vols. Kraus reprint, 1974), vol. 3 (1608-1610), p. 136

[23] George O’Brien, The economic history of Ireland in the Seventeenth Century, p. 78

[24] Aidan Clarke, ‘The Irish economy, 1600-60’, in A new History of Ireland, vol. 3: Early modern Ireland 1534-1691, edited by T.W. Moody, F.X. Martin & F.J. Byrne, pp. 176, 177

[25] T.W. Moody & J.G. Simms (eds.), The Bishopric of Derry and the Irish Society of London, 1602-1705, vol. 2: 1670-1705 (Stationery Office, Dublin, 1983), p. 465

[26] Rev. Charles W. Russell & John P. Prendergast (eds.), Calendar of the State Papers relating to Ireland of the reign of James I (5 vols. Kraus reprint, 1974), vol. 4 (1611-1614), pp. 100, 379

[27] George O’Brien, The economic history of Ireland in the Seventeenth Century, p. 78

[28] Rev. Charles W. Russell & John P. Prendergast (eds.), Calendar of the State Papers relating to Ireland of the reign of James I (5 vols. Kraus reprint, 1974), vol. 4 (1611-1614), p. 379

[29] Rev. Charles W. Russell & John P. Prendergast (eds.), Calendar of the State Papers relating to Ireland of the reign of James I (5 vols. Kraus reprint, 1974), vol. 4 (1611-1614), p. 486

[30] Rev. Charles W. Russell & John P. Prendergast (eds.), Calendar of the State Papers relating to Ireland of the reign of James I (5 vols. Kraus reprint, 1974), vol. 5 (1615-1625), p. 14

[31] George O’Brien, The economic history of Ireland in the Seventeenth Century, p. 78

[32] Victor Treadwell, Buckingham and Ireland 1616-1628, p. 166

[33] Victor Treadwell, Buckingham and Ireland 1616-1628, p. 91

[34] Victor Treadwell, Buckingham and Ireland 1616-1628, p. 92

[35] Victor Treadwell (ed.), The Irish Commission of 1622, p. 15

[36] Victor Treadwell (ed.), The Irish Commission of 1622, p. 26

[37] Victor Treadwell (ed.), The Irish Commission of 1622, p. 152

[38] Victor Treadwell (ed.), The Irish Commission of 1622, p. 735

[39] Victor Treadwell (ed.), The Irish Commission of 1622, p. 153

[40] Victor Treadwell (ed.), The Irish Commission of 1622, p. 153

[41] Victor Treadwell (ed.), The Irish Commission of 1622, p. 153

[42] Victor Treadwell (ed.), The Irish Commission of 1622, p. 153

[43] Victor Treadwell (ed.), The Irish Commission of 1622, p. 247

[44] Victor Treadwell (ed.), The Irish Commission of 1622, p. 248

[45] Victor Treadwell (ed.), The Irish Commission of 1622, p. 248

[46] Victor Treadwell (ed.), The Irish Commission of 1622, p. 275

[47] Victor Treadwell (ed.), The Irish Commission of 1622, pp. 319, 320

[48] Victor Treadwell (ed.), The Irish Commission of 1622, p. 366

[49] Victor Treadwell (ed.), The Irish Commission of 1622, pp. 394, 395

[50] Victor Treadwell (ed.), The Irish Commission of 1622, p. 554

[51] Victor Treadwell (ed.), The Irish Commission of 1622, p. 587

[52] Victor Treadwell (ed.), The Irish Commission of 1622, p. 596

[53] Robert P. Mahaffy (ed.), Calendar of the State Papers relating to Ireland of the reign of Charles I and Commonwealth (4 vols. Kraus reprint, 1979), vol. 3 (1647-1660), p. 239

[54] Robert P. Mahaffy (ed.), Calendar of the State Papers relating to Ireland of the reign of Charles I and Commonwealth (4 vols. Kraus reprint, 1979), vol. 1 (1625-1632), p. 682

[55] Charles McNeill (ed.), The Tanner Letters (Stationery Office, Dublin, 1943), p.  11; Robert P. Mahaffy (ed.), Calendar of the State Papers relating to Ireland of the reign of Charles I and Commonwealth (4 vols. Kraus reprint, 1979), vol. 2 (1633-1647), p. 134

[56] George O’Brien, The economic history of Ireland in the Seventeenth Century, p. 79

[57] J.S. Brewer & William Bullen (eds.), Calendar of the Carew Manuscripts at Lambeth (6 vols. Kraus reprint, 1974), vol. 6 (1603-1624), p. 30

[58] George O’Brien, The economic history of Ireland in the Seventeenth Century, p. 79

[59] Robert P. Mahaffy (ed.), Calendar of the State Papers relating to Ireland of the reign of Charles I and Commonwealth (4 vols. Kraus reprint, 1979), vol. 3 (1647-1660), p. 235

[60] George O’Brien, The economic history of Ireland in the Seventeenth Century, p. 80

[61] Robert P. Mahaffy (ed.), Calendar of the State Papers relating to Ireland of the reign of Charles I and Commonwealth (4 vols. Kraus reprint, 1979), vol. 2 (1633-1647), p. 294

[62] Robert P. Mahaffy (ed.), Calendar of the State Papers relating to Ireland of the reign of Charles I and Commonwealth (4 vols. Kraus reprint, 1979), vol. 3 (1647-1660), p. 367

[63] Aidan Clarke, ‘The Irish economy, 1600-60’, in A new History of Ireland, vol. 3: Early modern Ireland 1534-1691, edited by T.W. Moody, F.X. Martin & F.J. Byrne, pp. 182, 183

[64] Richard Caulfield (ed.), Council Book of the Corporation of Youghal (Guildford, 1878), pp. 186, 187

[65] Robert P. Mahaffy (ed.), Calendar of the State Papers relating to Ireland of the reign of Charles I and Commonwealth (4 vols. Kraus reprint, 1979), vol. 3 (1647-1660), p. 826

[66] Richard M. Flatman (ed.), ‘Some inhabitants of the Baronies of Newcastle and Uppercross Co. Dublin, c.1650’, in The Irish Genealogist, Vol. 7, No. 4 (1989), p. 497; Ibid, Vol. 8, No. 1 (1990), pp. 4, 9; Ibid, Vol. 8, No. 2 (1991), pp. 162, 170, 172, 173; Ibid, Vol. 8, No. 3 (1992), p. 328; Ibid, Vol. 8, No. 4 (1993), p. 502

[67] Susan Flavin & Evan T. Jones (eds.), Bristol’s trade with Ireland and the Continent 1503-1601 (Bristol Record Society, vol. 61, 2009), p. 46

[68] Susan Flavin & Evan T. Jones (eds.), Bristol’s trade with Ireland and the Continent 1503-1601, p. 120

[69] Susan Flavin & Evan T. Jones (eds.), Bristol’s trade with Ireland and the Continent 1503-1601, p. 216

[70] Susan Flavin & Evan T. Jones (eds.), Bristol’s trade with Ireland and the Continent 1503-1601, p. 150

[71] Susan Flavin & Evan T. Jones (eds.), Bristol’s trade with Ireland and the Continent 1503-1601, p. 84

[72] Susan Flavin & Evan T. Jones (eds.), Bristol’s trade with Ireland and the Continent 1503-1601, pp. 111, 112

[73] Susan Flavin & Evan T. Jones (eds.), Bristol’s trade with Ireland and the Continent 1503-1601, p. 177

[74] Susan Flavin & Evan T. Jones (eds.), Bristol’s trade with Ireland and the Continent 1503-1601, p. 221

[75] Susan Flavin & Evan T. Jones (eds.), Bristol’s trade with Ireland and the Continent 1503-1601, p. 488

[76] Susan Flavin & Evan T. Jones (eds.), Bristol’s trade with Ireland and the Continent 1503-1601, pp. 2, 3

[77] Susan Flavin & Evan T. Jones (eds.), Bristol’s trade with Ireland and the Continent 1503-1601, p. 85

[78] Susan Flavin & Evan T. Jones (eds.), Bristol’s trade with Ireland and the Continent 1503-1601, p. 117

[79] Susan Flavin & Evan T. Jones (eds.), Bristol’s trade with Ireland and the Continent 1503-1601, p. 163

[80] Susan Flavin & Evan T. Jones (eds.), Bristol’s trade with Ireland and the Continent 1503-1601, p. 188

[81] Susan Flavin & Evan T. Jones (eds.), Bristol’s trade with Ireland and the Continent 1503-1601, p. 204

[82] Susan Flavin & Evan T. Jones (eds.), Bristol’s trade with Ireland and the Continent 1503-1601, p. 209

[83] Susan Flavin & Evan T. Jones (eds.), Bristol’s trade with Ireland and the Continent 1503-1601, p. 216

[84] Susan Flavin & Evan T. Jones (eds.), Bristol’s trade with Ireland and the Continent 1503-1601, p. 246

[85] Susan Flavin & Evan T. Jones (eds.), Bristol’s trade with Ireland and the Continent 1503-1601, p. 263

[86] Susan Flavin & Evan T. Jones (eds.), Bristol’s trade with Ireland and the Continent 1503-1601, p. 266

[87] Susan Flavin & Evan T. Jones (eds.), Bristol’s trade with Ireland and the Continent 1503-1601, p. 267

[88] Susan Flavin & Evan T. Jones (eds.), Bristol’s trade with Ireland and the Continent 1503-1601, p. 270

[89] Susan Flavin & Evan T. Jones (eds.), Bristol’s trade with Ireland and the Continent 1503-1601, p. 272

[90] Susan Flavin & Evan T. Jones (eds.), Bristol’s trade with Ireland and the Continent 1503-1601, p. 363

[91] Susan Flavin & Evan T. Jones (eds.), Bristol’s trade with Ireland and the Continent 1503-1601, p. 363

[92] Susan Flavin & Evan T. Jones (eds.), Bristol’s trade with Ireland and the Continent 1503-1601, p. 454

[93] Susan Flavin & Evan T. Jones (eds.), Bristol’s trade with Ireland and the Continent 1503-1601, p. 475

[94] Susan Flavin & Evan T. Jones (eds.), Bristol’s trade with Ireland and the Continent 1503-1601, p. 479

[95] Susan Flavin & Evan T. Jones (eds.), Bristol’s trade with Ireland and the Continent 1503-1601, p. 516

[96] Susan Flavin & Evan T. Jones (eds.), Bristol’s trade with Ireland and the Continent 1503-1601, p. 519

[97] Susan Flavin & Evan T. Jones (eds.), Bristol’s trade with Ireland and the Continent 1503-1601, p. 3

[98] Susan Flavin & Evan T. Jones (eds.), Bristol’s trade with Ireland and the Continent 1503-1601, p. 43

[99] Susan Flavin & Evan T. Jones (eds.), Bristol’s trade with Ireland and the Continent 1503-1601, pp. 75, 76

[100] Susan Flavin & Evan T. Jones (eds.), Bristol’s trade with Ireland and the Continent 1503-1601, p. 108

[101] Susan Flavin & Evan T. Jones (eds.), Bristol’s trade with Ireland and the Continent 1503-1601, p. 173

[102] Susan Flavin & Evan T. Jones (eds.), Bristol’s trade with Ireland and the Continent 1503-1601, p. 176

[103] Susan Flavin & Evan T. Jones (eds.), Bristol’s trade with Ireland and the Continent 1503-1601, p. 219

[104] Susan Flavin & Evan T. Jones (eds.), Bristol’s trade with Ireland and the Continent 1503-1601, p. 244

[105] Susan Flavin & Evan T. Jones (eds.), Bristol’s trade with Ireland and the Continent 1503-1601, p. 266

[106] Susan Flavin & Evan T. Jones (eds.), Bristol’s trade with Ireland and the Continent 1503-1601, p. 287

[107] Susan Flavin & Evan T. Jones (eds.), Bristol’s trade with Ireland and the Continent 1503-1601, p. 289

[108] Susan Flavin & Evan T. Jones (eds.), Bristol’s trade with Ireland and the Continent 1503-1601, p. 339

[109] Susan Flavin & Evan T. Jones (eds.), Bristol’s trade with Ireland and the Continent 1503-1601, p. 344

[110] Susan Flavin & Evan T. Jones (eds.), Bristol’s trade with Ireland and the Continent 1503-1601, p. 357

[111] Susan Flavin & Evan T. Jones (eds.), Bristol’s trade with Ireland and the Continent 1503-1601, p. 391

[112] Susan Flavin & Evan T. Jones (eds.), Bristol’s trade with Ireland and the Continent 1503-1601, p. 445

[113] Susan Flavin & Evan T. Jones (eds.), Bristol’s trade with Ireland and the Continent 1503-1601, p. 460

[114] Susan Flavin & Evan T. Jones (eds.), Bristol’s trade with Ireland and the Continent 1503-1601, p. 461

[115] Susan Flavin & Evan T. Jones (eds.), Bristol’s trade with Ireland and the Continent 1503-1601, pp. 461, 462

[116] Susan Flavin & Evan T. Jones (eds.), Bristol’s trade with Ireland and the Continent 1503-1601, p. 485

[117] Susan Flavin & Evan T. Jones (eds.), Bristol’s trade with Ireland and the Continent 1503-1601, p. 490

[118] Susan Flavin & Evan T. Jones (eds.), Bristol’s trade with Ireland and the Continent 1503-1601, p. 518

[119] Susan Flavin & Evan T. Jones (eds.), Bristol’s trade with Ireland and the Continent 1503-1601, p. 520

[120] Susan Flavin & Evan T. Jones (eds.), Bristol’s trade with Ireland and the Continent 1503-1601, p. 519

[121] Susan Flavin & Evan T. Jones (eds.), Bristol’s trade with Ireland and the Continent 1503-1601, pp. 500, 501

[122] Susan Flavin & Evan T. Jones (eds.), Bristol’s trade with Ireland and the Continent 1503-1601, p. 523

[123] Susan Flavin & Evan T. Jones (eds.), Bristol’s trade with Ireland and the Continent 1503-1601, p. 216

[124] Susan Flavin & Evan T. Jones (eds.), Bristol’s trade with Ireland and the Continent 1503-1601, p. 39

[125] Susan Flavin & Evan T. Jones (eds.), Bristol’s trade with Ireland and the Continent 1503-1601, p. 53

[126] Susan Flavin & Evan T. Jones (eds.), Bristol’s trade with Ireland and the Continent 1503-1601, p. 75

[127] Susan Flavin & Evan T. Jones (eds.), Bristol’s trade with Ireland and the Continent 1503-1601, p. 97

[128] Susan Flavin & Evan T. Jones (eds.), Bristol’s trade with Ireland and the Continent 1503-1601, p. 274

[129] Susan Flavin & Evan T. Jones (eds.), Bristol’s trade with Ireland and the Continent 1503-1601, p. 256

[130] Susan Flavin & Evan T. Jones (eds.), Bristol’s trade with Ireland and the Continent 1503-1601, p. 331

[131] Susan Flavin & Evan T. Jones (eds.), Bristol’s trade with Ireland and the Continent 1503-1601, p. 409

[132] Susan Flavin & Evan T. Jones (eds.), Bristol’s trade with Ireland and the Continent 1503-1601, pp. 424, 425

[133] Susan Flavin & Evan T. Jones (eds.), Bristol’s trade with Ireland and the Continent 1503-1601, pp. 425, 426

[134] Susan Flavin & Evan T. Jones (eds.), Bristol’s trade with Ireland and the Continent 1503-1601, p. 408

[135] Susan Flavin & Evan T. Jones (eds.), Bristol’s trade with Ireland and the Continent 1503-1601, p. 420

[136] Susan Flavin & Evan T. Jones (eds.), Bristol’s trade with Ireland and the Continent 1503-1601, p. 408

[137] Susan Flavin & Evan T. Jones (eds.), Bristol’s trade with Ireland and the Continent 1503-1601, p. 410

[138] Susan Flavin & Evan T. Jones (eds.), Bristol’s trade with Ireland and the Continent 1503-1601, p. 411

[139] Susan Flavin & Evan T. Jones (eds.), Bristol’s trade with Ireland and the Continent 1503-1601, p. 412

[140] Susan Flavin & Evan T. Jones (eds.), Bristol’s trade with Ireland and the Continent 1503-1601, p. 454