Showing posts with label merchant. Show all posts
Showing posts with label merchant. Show all posts

Monday, May 5, 2014

Irish Parliament of 1269

Irish Parliament of 1269

Niall C.E.J. O’Brien

In the year 1269 there was held somewhere in Ireland a parliament for the better promotion of trade. Elsewhere around the country the business of life and security continued.

Ireland in 1269

In Connacht King Aedh O’Conor was causing great disturbances among the Anglo-Norman settlements. In punishment the government took back into their own ownership the cantred of Tirmany which only escalated Aedh’s attacks. In 1268 he was summoned to a conference at Athlone but instead of peace breakout, Aedh sent his armed men into the town, killing many.[1] In 1269 the new justiciar, Robert d’Ufford, began construction of Roscommon castle, in the heart of Aedh’s territory, to protect the settlements and control King Aedh. Richard de Exeter, deputy of the justiciar, was paid £90 for the defence of Roscommon castle in the years 1269-1270.[2] King Aedh clearly saw the castle as a threat to his own power and sought to destroy it before it was fully completed. In 1270, 1271 and 1272 he attacked, captured and destroyed the castle but the English rebuilt it every time. Peace only came with the death of King Aedh in 1274 when the Irish devoted their energies to fighting among their own.[3]   

Other events that happen in 1269 include the granting of the king’s licence to Thomas de Clare to travel to Ireland in April. In September the king appointed Brother Walter Omychain of the Franciscan order as Bishop of Ross.[4] When King Henry III granted the lordship of Ireland to his eldest son, Prince Edward in 1254, the king reserved for his own use the temporalities of vacant Irish bishoprics and monastic houses along with the appointment of new incumbents.[5] The Earl of Ulster felt that his area of influence was outside this royal reservation. In December 1269 King Henry wrote to Walter de Burgh, Earl of Ulster, that Ulster was not outside the royal area of reservation and the earl was to restore all church property to their respected owners.[6]

Elsewhere in March 1269 the Archbishop of Dublin and the Prior of Hospital of Jerusalem in Ireland settled a long running dispute of the right to the church of Stachfythenane. Both sides cancelled each other’s debts and the prior promised to defend the archbishop in any challenge for Stachfythenane made by Bonefacius de Coronato.[7] In June 1269 the dean and chapter of Cashel grant a wood called Dyreyncled to Thomas son of David for a yearly rent of four pounds of wax or 2 shillings on the feast of St. Patrick.[8] In November 1269, before the justice in eyre at the court of Lord Edward, son of Henry III, John and Matilda Boschere released all claims on 15 acres of land at Balirothegane to the Archbishop of Dublin in return for 100 shillings.[9] In December 1269 a jury of inquisition met in Kilkenny to examine a dispute between the Bishop of Ossory and the heirs of William Marshal. The jury found that the Bishop of Ossory had a just claim to the market at Kilkenny and to an ounce of gold for land given to William Marshal long the banks of the River Nore.[10]

1269 Parliament

The parliament of 1269 met in the Michaelmas term (30th September to 14th January) of that year at an unknown location.[11] In attendance were the justiciar, Robert d’Ufford and members of the king’s council, all the magnates and the whole community.[12] What is exactly meant by “the whole community” is unclear. The later parliament in 1297 is considered the first to have representatives of the people, i.e. the middle class people of property. Richardson and Sayles remarked that this “whole community” may simply be representatives who were not magnates, although it was also the case that the magnates sometimes claimed to speak for the “whole community”.[13]

The entire business transacted at the 1269 parliament is unknown. The chief business transacted, according to the surviving evidence, was the adoption of the Statue of weights and measures. The text of this statute declared that:
 
Provided and statute is of the council of Lord Robert d’Ufford, Justiciar of Ireland, and others faithful to Lord Edward who are of his council and of the agreement of all the magnates and the total community of Ireland that one and the same measure each beget having one and same gallon, one and same weight, one and same elbow of length are of future set down for all of Ireland which are usual in the city of London.[14]

Previous efforts to standardise weights and measures

This legislation was not the first effort to standardise weights and measures. In 1217 Henry III declared that there should be one measure of wine, corn and ale throughout the kingdom and that there should be uniformity in the length of cloth.[15] This declaration seemed to have only partial effect. In 1244 Henry III had to issue a new proclamation via the justiciar of Ireland that all “weights and measures should be equal in counties and vills in Ireland”. The standard for this uniformity was the weights and measures used in Dublin, “if they be such as can be followed”.[16]

Proclamation of weights and measures by Ford Madox Brown from 1st-art-gallery.com

The last proviso was of importance as even within Dublin there was not uniformity in the weights and measure used. In 1253 it was reported the standards still varied around the country and particularly within Dublin. The justiciar of the time, John Fitz Geoffrey, was instructed to proclaim a uniform measure throughout Ireland but with little success.[17] The parliament of 1269, by setting London as the standard for weights and measures, hoped to get over the differences in Dublin. Carlow castle had previously purchased a gallon measure in Dublin to use as a recognised standard measure. It is not known if this gallon measure was laid aside and a new one purchased from London.[18]

Weights and measures after 1269

It would seem that the London standard was not universally adopted in Ireland. In 1276 it was found that the sacks of wool used in Ireland were larger than in England yet having equal monetary value. The Irish wool sacks were charged 10 shillings in tax while the English sacks carried a tax of half a mark (6 shillings 8 pence). After complaint by some Irish merchants the king instructed Robert d’Ufford to charge the Irish sacks the same tax as the English sacks.[19] In this incidence there appears to have been no effort made to standardise the sacks sizes between Ireland and England. 

The chief officer of each town, be it mayor, sovereign or portreeve, and the sheriff of each county was to ensure that standard weights and measures were implemented. The royal government appointed a national overseer of weights and measures to keep check on the local officials. In 1277 Elias de Wynton was sent from England to inspect the weights throughout Ireland. In February 1392 John Aldelyme senior was appointed keeper of the weights and measures of Ireland for life along with other jobs.[20]

Weights and measures and the scales of justice

But not every overseer of the weights and measures had the king’s interest and the promotion of sound trade at heart. In the 1290s Edmund Biroun was keeper of weights and measures for the King in Ireland. As part of his job he went to the chief market towns to check the measures. While at some towns the locals gave Edmund many gifts not to charge them unjustly, and so Edmund falsely changed or diminished the legal measures, and amerced others who were not culpable or convicted. Edmund Biroun was summoned to appear at the justiciar’s court but fled the country. Later when the justiciar was returning from visiting the king in England he found and arrested Edmund Biroun in Wales. Edmund was brought back to Ireland but escaped from Dublin Castle before his trial date. In 1300 the sheriffs were commanded to demand him in their county courts until Edmund Biroun was outlawed or taken.[21] It is not clear if Edmund was ever brought to justice.

The success of the 1269 parliament in effecting standard weights and measures was varied. But the problems of standardization were by no means confined to Ireland. In 1390 thirty three offenders were found in the city of Exeter alone, using false measures.[22] In France regional variations in the weights and measures used continued until the French Revolution.

Next Irish parliament

The parliament of 1269 was followed by seven years of normal activity before the next parliament met in 1276. This gathering will form the subject of a future article.

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

End of post

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




[1] James Lydon, ‘A land at war’, in A new History of Ireland, Vol. 2, Medieval Ireland 1169-1534, edited by Art Cosgrove (Oxford University Press, 2008), p. 249
[2] Philomena Connolly, Irish Exchequer Payments 1270-1446 (Irish Manuscripts Commission, Dublin, 1998), p. 3
[3] Margaret Murphy & Kieran O’Conor, Roscommon Castle: A Visitor’s Guide (Roscommon County Council, 2008), p. 8
[4] H.S. Sweetman (ed.), Calendar of Documents relating to Ireland (5 vols. Kraus reprint, 1974), Vol. 2 (1252-1284), nos. 855, 857
[5] H.S. Richardson & G.O. Sayles, ‘The administration of Ireland: introduction (reprint)’, in Analecta Hibernica, No. 29 (1980), p. 46
[6] H.S. Sweetman (ed.), Calendar of Documents relating to Ireland, Vol. 2 (1252-1284), no. 860
[7] Charles McNeill (ed.), Calendar of Archbishop Alen’s Register c.1172-1534 (Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland, Dublin, 1950), pp. 131-132
[8] Edmund Curtis (ed.), Calendar of Ormond Deeds (5 vols. Stationery Office, Dublin, 1932), Vol. 1 (1172-1350), no. 148
[9] Charles McNeill (ed.), Calendar of Archbishop Alen’s Register, p. 133
[10] H.S. Sweetman (ed.), Calendar of Documents relating to Ireland, Vol. 2 (1252-1284), no. 861
[11] Aubrey Gwynn, ‘The Irish Parliament in the Middle Ages’, in Studies: An Irish Quarterly Review, Vol. 12, No. 166 (1953), p. 215
[12] H.G. Richardson & G.O. Sayles, ‘The Irish Parliaments of Edward I’, in Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy, Section C, Vol. 38 (1928-1929), p. 130
[13] Richardson & Sayles, ‘The Irish Parliaments of Edward I’, in P.R.I.A., Section C, Vol. 38, p. 132
[14] Charles McNeill, ‘Harris Collectanea de Rebus Hibernicus’, in Analecta Hibernica, No. 6 (1934), p. 300; H.F. Berry (ed.), Statutes and ordinances and acts of the parliaments of Ireland: King John to Henry V (Irish Record Office Series of Early Statutes, Dublin, 1907), p. 36
[15] Karina Holton, ‘From charters to carters: aspects of fairs and markets in medieval Leinster’, in Irish Fairs and Markets: Studies in Local History, edited by Denis A. Cronin, Jim Gilligan & Karina Holton (Four Courts Press, Dublin, 2001), p. 38
[16] H.S. Sweetman (ed.), Calendar of Documents relating to Ireland, Vol. 1 (1171-1251), no. 2713
[17] H.S. Sweetman (ed.), Calendar of Documents relating to Ireland, Vol. 2 (1252-1284), no. 222
[18] Karina Holton, ‘From charters to carters: aspects of fairs and markets in medieval Leinster’, in Irish Fairs and Markets: Studies in Local History, edited by Denis A. Cronin, Jim Gilligan & Karina Holton, p. 38
[19] H.S. Sweetman (ed.), Calendar of Documents relating to Ireland, Vol. 2 (1252-1284), no. 1305
[20] Paul Dryburgh & Brendan Smith (eds.), Handbook and Select Calendar of Sources for Medieval Ireland in the National Archives of the Unite Kingdom (Four Courts Press, Dublin, 2005), p. 161
[21] James Mills (ed.), Calendar of the Justiciary Rolls of Ireland XXIII to XXXI Edward I (Stationery Office, Dublin, 1905), p. 316
[22] Maryanne Kowaleski, Local Markets and Regional Trade in Medieval Exeter (Cambridge University Press, 1995), p. 189

Sunday, April 20, 2014

Dublin apprentices admitted to freedom 1468-1470

Dublin apprentices admitted to freedom 1468-1470

Niall C.E.J. O’Brien

The origin of the apprenticeship system is unknown. The term apprentice appears as early as 1261 in a London ordinance and Bristol was one of the first cities after London to make enactments for apprentices. By the fifteenth century other towns and trade guilds followed with their own laws. Parliament soon got involved to regulate the different bye-laws which had developed across the country. Various Acts of Parliament were issued which culminated with the statute of 1563 which made apprenticeship compulsory for all who wished to enter a trade. It was not until the reign of George III that this legal obligation was repealed though it had become a dead letter long before then.[1]

The development of apprenticeship, during medieval times, from a private contract between a master and his pupil, into a universal, recognised state system suited all concerned. To the master it gave complete control over a pupil while the latter benefited from good training. For the trade guilds, the system regulated the flow of new entrants and so prevented over-supply of the market and with consequent cutting of prices and wages by traders. It also prevented inferior workmanship. The town corporations also earned money by charging 6d to enrol an indenture, and collected a further 4s 6d for granting an apprentice freedom to trade in the borough. The state also earned money from a good tax-paying group while keeping the feudal rights of the principal government ministers from collapse.[2]

In January 1470 the Dublin assembly ordained that all apprentices taken on for term of years should within the first year entered their names in the city court books and pay 4 pence to the recorder for the enrolment. Anybody who does not present themselves at enrolment was to be refused the franchise of the city.[3] This ordnance was kept for many years and was renewed in June 1577 with the additional measure that a special register book to be kept of the terms and years of each apprenticeship. The clerk of the Tholsel was to check that all the current apprentices in the city were fully enrolled. The price of enrolment was set at 4 pence and that of the indenture at 2 shillings.[4]

The earliest record of the admittance of people to the franchise of Dublin after serving a term of apprenticeship was in October 1468 but it is certain that earlier records once existed. The opening paragraph of the franchise roll said that people should be “sworn in the usual form” which clearly points to earlier activity. Each freeman was to make residence in the city bounds within a year and a day.[5]

Craft people and merchants admitted to the franchise and thus made freemen of the city was a coveted status for medieval people. Having the freedom allowed people to trade in the city, to open a shop and to engage in a craft trade like a hooper or shoemaker. Freemen could trade at a reduced rate of fees compared to a non-freeman. Dublin freemen also had favourable trading status in other towns and in areas controlled by the English administration.   

Map of medieval Dublin - a place well known to our apprentices

The trades admitted in 1468 included three glovers, two hoopers, two merchants, and one shoemaker, baker, skinner, pewterer, dyer, mariner, tailor, smith along with one woman as a wine-taverner. Another group of people were not admitted directly to the franchise. These included any bakers, fishers or butchers. These trades were closely regulated by their own guilds and thus had first call on who should be admitted to the franchise.[6] Having disallowed these people the city council admitted Richard Calf as a baker who had served an apprenticeship.[7]

Another group not admitted to the franchise were people of the Irish nation. On the issue of Irish people the city assembly decided against admittance. Yet it would seem that some existing freemen were taking on Irish people as apprentices. At the start of May 1469 the city assembly directed that all craft-men within the city could only take on apprentices of English birth (from England and the parts of Ireland controlled by the English). If a freeman took on an Irish apprentice he would lose his franchise while an un-freeman would be fined 40 shillings.[8]

The exclusion of Irish people from apprenticeship had to do with security concerns. A city ordinance before 1460 states that “no merchant’s apprentice was to be admitted to the franchise until he had a bow, sheaf of arrows, light helmet and a sword of his own”. Craft apprentices were to be equipped with a bow, arrows and a sword.[9]

Over the succeeding decades further acts to control apprentices and the apprentice system were passed by the city assembly. In May 1582 the Dublin assembly issued a grave concern about apprentices going to taverns of ill-repute and wasting their master’s goods. They feared the wrath of God with apprentices keeping women prostitutes. A fine of £10 was to be imposed on any convicted of such activity.[10] 

In September 1605 young men, who had served their apprenticeships, complained to the city council that they could not gain admittance to the trade guilds unless they paid £4 or provide a “great dinner”. The council ordered that every young artisan who had served his apprenticeship should in lieu of the dinner pay twenty shillings. If refused admittance the artisan should be free to excise his trade independently.[11]

In May 1606 the city council ordered that apprentices who wore locks of hair or had long hair were to be whipped. The masters were bound to have this punishment inflicted in the trade guild hall by the porters in disguise.[12]

Further discussion

More apprentices were admitted after 1470 but they are not recorded here. Finding records for the above apprentices is difficult. For starter the franchise roll is just a list of names of people and by what means they are admitted as freemen. The detailed apprentice books that we see at Bristol and other English cities came later in the mid Sixteenth century. Thus we don’t know with whom the above apprentices served their time. We also don’t know where the apprentice came from – were they from the Dublin area or from other parts of Ireland.

Finding information on the apprentices after they got the freedom of Dublin is also difficult. The assembly records between 1507 and 1533 have not survived and this would be the period when the apprentices would have grown in standing and possibly serve on the city assembly or be senior enough to take leases on city property.[13]

Of the 53 apprentices admitted to the franchise between 1468 and 1470 the most persons admitted (17) were merchants, including one woman merchant. Some of these merchants were possibly involved with international trade or trade with other parts of Ireland. It is also possible that many of these merchants could be better described as shop-keepers, serving the local trade in Dublin. This high level of new merchants suggests that the Dublin economy was very much a trading economy rather than a centre of major manufacture. To help protect this trade and the city population a rate of 3 pence was fixed on each shop to pay for the city watchmen.[14]

It is possible that the high proportion of merchants admitted to freedom compared to other trades could be accounted for by the intention of many of the qualified merchants to return home to their native place. Having trained and gained admittance to the freedom of Dublin would be of great benefit to their business back home. They could come to Dublin and trade on favourable terms and thus have an advantage over their competitor merchants back home.  

To help the international merchant the admittance of three mariners confirmed the importance of Dublin as one of the chef ports of Ireland. Among the other admitted trades there were five in the glove making craft. Gloves were important for horse riding and using work horses. The glove-maker was an important trade in a time when the horse was a very important animal. There were five smiths admitted. The smith made horse shoes for the horses, farm implements for the farmer, and nails for the builder along with all other works that involved iron products.

Tudor period glove-maker: image from heartengland.blogspot

Other people working with metals include the goldsmith, the pewterer (making household vessels of pewter), the coiner (making coins or trade tokens so people can “shop til they drop”) and the two hoopers (making barrels or rims for cart wheels). The other trades admitted to franchise included shoemakers, butchers and pipers (two people for each trade); carpenter, skinner, baker, dyer, tailor, wine-taverner, and coiner (one person for each trade). Five apprentices were admitted without giving their trade of which four of these were women. It is difficult to even speculate as to what trade these people had. An inn-keeper or seamstress was the usual occupation for women but as we saw women could also be merchants and thus guess work cannot be properly used in for these five apprentices.

It is hoped to examine Dublin apprentices in more detail in the decades after 1470 and particularly in the sixteenth century when more records are available  

Dublin apprentices admitted to freedom 1468-1470

Admitted to the franchise on fourth Friday after 29th September 1468 after serving apprenticeship[15]
Henry Walsh = shoemaker
Peter Walsh = skinner
Richard Calf = baker
Thomas Burton = glover
John Tovey = glover
Richard Wylcoke = glover
John White = pewterer
Maurice Mulghan = hooper
John Savage = merchant
John Cottrell = merchant
Robert Rede = hooper
Thomas Higgin = dyer
Robert Clerk = mariner
Hugh Leche = tailor
John Lange = smith
Isabella Naugle = wine-taverner

Admitted to the franchise in fourth Friday after Easter 1469 after serving apprenticeship[16]
John Mortimer = merchant
John Ray = merchant
Matthew Loghan = coiner
Richard Kenan = butcher
Reys Walshe = piper
John Talbot = piper
Richard Gavane = smith
Thady Wygmore = mariner

Admitted to the franchise on fourth Friday after 24th June 1469 after serving apprenticeship[17]
Philip Walsh = butcher

Admitted to the franchise on fourth Friday after 29th September 1468 after serving apprenticeship[18]
Johanna Ryan = merchant = shortly after Johanna Ryan was admitted as a freeman of Dublin she got married to Nicholas Nangle, shoemaker. On the fourth Friday after 29th September 1470 Nicholas Nangle was admitted a freeman because he was married to a freeman.[19]
John Begge = merchant
Roger Nangle = merchant
Robert Rocheford = merchant
Patrick Logan = smith
John Herford = smith
Johanna Walsh = no trade given
Nicholas Keating = no trade given

Admitted to the franchise on fourth Friday after 25th December 1469 after serving apprenticeship[20]
John Fleming = shoemaker
Peter White = carpenter
Thomas Francis = glover
Henry Purcell = mariner
John Iirrell = merchant
Alice Cornwalsh = no trade given
Nicholas Fernes = smith
Thomas Whitacre = merchant
Martin Eustace = merchant
Nicholas Brown = goldsmith

Admitted to the franchise on fourth Friday after Easter 1470 after serving apprenticeship[21]
Thomas West = merchant
Philip Samson = merchant
John Passelow = merchant
Thomas Neill = merchant

Admitted to the franchise on fourth Friday after 24th June 1470 after serving apprenticeship[22]
Margery Dennyse = no trade given

Admitted to the franchise on fourth Friday after 29th September 1470 after serving apprenticeship[23]
Robert Roger = merchant
Johanna Gellows = no trade given
Nicholas Tyrrell = glover

Admitted to the franchise on fourth Friday after 25th December 1470 after serving apprenticeship[24]
John Chillam = merchant

==========

End of post

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





[1] Denzil Hollis (ed.), Calendar of the Bristol Apprentice Book 1532-1565, part 1, 1532-1542 (Bristol Record Society, Vol. XIV, 1948), p. 3
[2] Hollis, p. 6.
[3] John T. Gilbert (ed.), Calendar of Ancient Records of Dublin (19 vols. Joseph Pollard, Dublin, 1889), Vol. 1, p. 338
[4] John T. Gilbert (ed.), Calendar of Ancient Records of Dublin (19 vols. Joseph Pollard, Dublin, 1891), Vol. 2, p. 118
[5] John T. Gilbert (ed.), Calendar of Ancient Records of Dublin, Vol. 1, p. 330
[6] Howard B. Clarke, ‘Angliors ipsis Anglis: the Place of Medieval Dubliners in English History’, in Surveying Ireland’s Past: Multidisciplinary Essays in Honour of Anngret Simms, edited by Howard Clarke, Jacinta Prunty & Mark Hennessy (Geography Publications, Dublin, 2004), p. 60
[7] John T. Gilbert (ed.), Calendar of Ancient Records of Dublin, Vol. 1, pp. 330, 331
[8] John T. Gilbert (ed.), Calendar of Ancient Records of Dublin, Vol. 1, p. 331
[9] Howard B. Clarke, ‘Angliors ipsis Anglis: the Place of Medieval Dubliners in English History’, in Surveying Ireland’s Past, edited by Clarke, Prunty & Hennessy, p. 71, note 133
[10] John T. Gilbert (ed.), Calendar of Ancient Records of Dublin, Vol. 2, pp. 164, 165
[11] John T. Gilbert (ed.), Calendar of Ancient Records of Dublin, Vol. 2, p. 450
[12] John T. Gilbert (ed.), Calendar of Ancient Records of Dublin, Vol. 2, p. 459
[13] John T. Gilbert (ed.), Calendar of Ancient Records of Dublin, Vol. 1, p. 394 note 2
[14] Howard B. Clarke, ‘Angliors ipsis Anglis: the Place of Medieval Dubliners in English History’, in Surveying Ireland’s Past, edited by Clarke, Prunty & Hennessy, p. 58
[15] John T. Gilbert (ed.), Calendar of Ancient Records of Dublin, Vol. 1, pp. 330, 331
[16] John T. Gilbert (ed.), Calendar of Ancient Records of Dublin, Vol. 1, p. 332
[17] John T. Gilbert (ed.), Calendar of Ancient Records of Dublin, Vol. 1, p. 334
[18] John T. Gilbert (ed.), Calendar of Ancient Records of Dublin, Vol. 1, p. 337
[19] John T. Gilbert (ed.), Calendar of Ancient Records of Dublin, Vol. 1, p. 344
[20] John T. Gilbert (ed.), Calendar of Ancient Records of Dublin, Vol. 1, p. 338
[21] John T. Gilbert (ed.), Calendar of Ancient Records of Dublin, Vol. 1, p. 340
[22] John T. Gilbert (ed.), Calendar of Ancient Records of Dublin, Vol. 1, p. 340
[23] John T. Gilbert (ed.), Calendar of Ancient Records of Dublin, Vol. 1, p. 344
[24] John T. Gilbert (ed.), Calendar of Ancient Records of Dublin, Vol. 1, p. 344