Printer Friendly

The guilds of Dublin and immigrants in the seventeenth century: the Defence of privilege in an age of change.

A recurring theme in the history of Dublin was the city's efforts to enhance and preserve its heritage of civic privileges, obtained through a series of royal grants dating back to its foundation. These rights and immunities informed all aspects of Dublin society, shaping its political, legal and economic structures. This article will examine the efforts of guilds and the civic elite to defend their economic privileges in the face of threats from immigrant artisans or traders. It will pay especial attention to the ways in which a changing religious and political situation influenced policy in this area.

In 1600 the aldermanic elite that oversaw the city's finances, policing and administration was a religiously mixed grouping. After 1650, apart from the Jacobite interlude, it became an avowedly Protestant body, although the patriciate still remained divided between dissenters and adherents of the Church of Ireland. (1) There was, however, significant continuity in terms of social composition, in that the patricians were mainly wealthy traders, closely linked to the merchant guild and keen to preserve the city's privileges out of economic and political self-interest. In 1672, for example, the New Rules imposed by the government, in an ostensible bid to boost trade, sought to enfranchise more citizens, chiefly by reducing the entry fine. (2) The civic elite, though deeply divided along political and religious lines, united to defend the corporation's control over the admission of new citizens. (3) The number enfranchised upon payment of an entry fine actually declined from a yearly average of 34 before 1672 to 24 after that date. (4)

Dublin's key economic privilege was its right to form guilds, whose members had the exclusive right to work at certain occupations and trade certain goods. (5)

The merchant guild controlled most of the city's wholesale and retail trade, while the craft guilds controlled the production and sale of many manufactured goods. As well as regulating much of the city's economic life, guilds were involved in organising the militia, in the administration of charity, and in other areas of urban life. They had their own hierarchies of wealth and seniority, with officers drawn from among the wealthiest masters while ordinary members included poorer masters and journeymen. After 1650, the government and civic elite reserved full guild membership for Protestants. The guild system came under government pressure in the early years of the century, but by the Restoration a sympathetic government was encouraging the formation of new guilds and the system of trade corporations was expanded and strengthened. (6)

The need to defend guild monopolies against outsiders was particularly acute in the seventeenth century. Given the excess of deaths over births that had existed since at least the late medieval period, (7) the uneven but dramatic expansion in population that took place after 1600 was clearly driven by immigration; in 1612 the common council commented on the 'numbers of foreigners daily increasing here in the city'. (8) Many of these immigrants appear to have come from England, particularly from the north-west. A small English community had already established itself in Dublin by 1600 and its numbers grew thereafter, especially during the 1630s, when it benefited from the encouragement of Lord Deputy Wentworth. (9) After the wars of mid-century, civic initiatives to encourage English immigrants were successful, as indicated by the English majority revealed in the 'census' of 1660. (10) Immigration from Britain continued during the Restoration and helped to drive the city's rapid development. Many Irish immigrants also came to the city, especially from its hinterland. Other newcomers came from continental Europe, including French Huguenots and Dutch. (11)

Dublin's civic elite did not divide the city's population into native or non-native. Instead, it categorised inhabitants as either citizens or 'unfree'. (12) The unfree were permitted to reside in the city, provided they paid the various civic taxes and other impositions. (13) However, they were excluded from the civic franchise and guild membership. This exclusion extended, even after 1650, when the city became staunchly Protestant, to any Protestant inhabitant not a citizen. (14) Suitably qualified immigrants could become citizens of the city. The civic elite, and especially the guilds, were consistently hostile to interlopers, commonly referred to as 'intruders', who sought to operate outside the ambit of the guild system. (15) The guilds, as incorporated bodies, erected byelaws against illicit traders and artisans in the city. The patricians generally supported these efforts. Civic byelaws against illicit artisans and traders were passed in the fourteenth century and complaints of intruders during the sixteenth century were common. (16) In this respect, the Dublin civic elite followed the practice of municipal authorities across Europe, from York to modern Riga, in protecting local guilds from outside intruders. (17) However, the city could on occasion act to curtail a guild's rights where these were judged to conflict with the common good. In 1603, and again in 1695, for example, the council curbed the bakers' monopoly during periods of food shortage. (18)

Although native Dubliners may occasionally have worked illegally in a sector subject to a guild's monopoly, it seems that immigrants were the main culprits. Intruders were referred to as 'foreigners' and 'strangers', terms applied to non-natives of the city, even those coming from its hinterland. The merchant tailors' guild complained in 1615 of English and Welsh tailors operating illegally in the city. (19) There were also continual complaints early in the century of Dutch traders who were ignoring the merchant guild's privileges. (20) Many English and some European immigrants traded illegally in the city in the late 1640s and early 1650s, while there were reports of many French Huguenots illegally engaged in the weaving and tailoring trades during the 1690s. (21) Immigrants from within Ireland were also no doubt involved in 'intruding', such as the Offaly Quaker John Baddiley, who was an illicit trader in the city's suburbs in the 1690s. (22) The patricians and guilds consistently condemned all immigrants, regardless of origin or religion, who threatened a guild's monopoly.

Immigrants were drawn to Dublin by an economy that was not only growing but also diversifying. Expansion made it difficult for the guilds to maintain their control. The records of the merchant guild confirm that 'intruders' were a constant problem throughout the century. (23) The socio-economic backgrounds of these interlopers were as varied as their origin. Some, like many of the city's Dutch merchants, were wealthy. (24) Others were poor, like the English tailor, known only as Greene, who came to Dublin to sell his wares during a recession at home in 1665. (25) Many of those who established themselves in the Irish capital were journeymen, such as John Whaley, the future astrologer, who arrived from London as a journeyman shoemaker in the 1670s. (26) The feltmakers' and tailors' guilds were especially wary of the activities of such immigrant journeymen. (27)

The problem of intruders was closely tied up with the city's geography. Some immigrants illegally traded within the municipal bounds. There were regular complaints that they did 'open shops in private houses' or sold goods 'under pretence they were samples'. (28) However, the majority of those migrants who intruded upon the monopolies of the guilds resided in the seigniorial jurisdictions known as the liberties. They were four distinct liberties, those of Christ Church Cathedral, St Sepulchre, St Patrick's Cathedral and Thomas Court and Donore. These liberties were recognised by the crown and held charters, dating back to medieval times, granting them extensive privileges. (29) From the 1580s, the municipality repeatedly sought to impose its authority upon the liberties, which in turn steadfastly asserted their independence. The contradictory claims of municipality and liberties were never resolved, leading to many disputes. During the Commonwealth, the municipality briefly absorbed the liberties, but after the Restoration they were able to reassert their independence. (30) The patriciate and liberties were involved in heated disputes, in the early years of the century and again in the 1660s and 1670s, over liability to civic cess. Another source of friction, especially before 1641, concerned the claim of the liberties to regulate commerce and manufacturing within their own jurisdictions, despite the age old assertions of the patriciate and the guilds that their control extended to trade and handicrafts there. (31) Similar disputes occurred in English towns, such as York, and in European metropolises such as Paris. (32) Despite constant municipal pressure, the liberties of Dublin were able to maintain their freedom from guild and municipal interference.

The independence of the liberties from guild control made them very attractive to immigrants. This freedom allowed foreign merchants to operate in the yard of Christ Church Cathedral, throughout the century, and enabled English weavers to establish themselves in Thomas Court after 1660. (33) The freedom of the liberties from guild regulation also enabled many immigrant journeymen to ply their trade in the city. The craft guilds permitted only those artisans who had served seven-year apprenticeships, or who could provide evidence of their competence in a proof-piece, to work in the city. But in the liberties those journeymen who could not satisfy these requirements, known as 'cubs', were entitled to work freely. (34) Within the refuge of the liberties, such immigrants operating outside the guild system created informal networks of support, as they did in many English boroughs. In the early years of the century, for example, tailors in Christchurch yard presented a Christmas entertainment and also banded together to resist guild officers seizing their goods. (35) The lords of the liberties needed these immigrants as tenants, as leases and rents were their main source of income. After 1660, the earl of Meath, proprietor of the liberty of Thomas Court, welcomed immigrants like the London weaver Abraham Clark. These immigrants, many of them English Quakers, took long-term leases from the earl, and the liberty became a centre for the weaving of woollens. (36) The two ecclesiastical liberties, likewise, needed tenants to help pay for the costly upkeep of their cathedrals. (37) It was thus important that these districts retained their immunities and their appeal to potential leaseholders. (38)

The threat that such outsiders posed to the livelihoods of guild members should not be underestimated. Evidence from English cities in the same period suggests that artisans and retailers in the liberties would have had fewer overheads and could thus have undercut the prices of established guild members. (39) Several petitioners in the 1620s claimed that 'they were overthrown by these intruders'. (40) In 1634 an official asserted that Dutch traders had 'eaten up all of the city's trade' and had ruined many native merchants. (41) It is noticeable that the majority of petitions complaining of intruders occurred during periods of dearth, indicating that guilds became most preoccupied with the problem of illicit workers during periods of economic downturn. (42)

To defend and enforce their privileges guilds could call on the sweeping powers of enforcement bestowed by different royal charters. The merchant tailors' guild, for example, had been granted the right to make byelaws relevant to its trade and its officers had 'magisterial powers'. (43) They had 'power to inquire into all offences connected with the art' of tailoring, especially with regard to all those who engaged in that craft illegally in the city. Guild officers could enter private property as part of their investigations and could order the arrest of intruders. These powers of policing guild privileges changed remarkably little over time. The charters granted to fraternities during the Restoration were identical to those granted to the city's guilds in the sixteenth century. The Dublin guilds' powers were similar to the rights enjoyed by fraternities in London and other towns and cities across England. (44)

The guilds punished intruders in several ways. The seizure of goods was a tactic employed by some of the older fraternities, such as the merchant tailors' guild, since the Middle Ages. (45) Some intruders were forced to appear before a guild tribunal and ordered to pay a fine. In 1615, for example, two immigrant tailors were each fined five shillings by the merchant tailors' guild 'for following the trade when not free'. (46) The guild of barber-surgeons could impose a more substantial fine of '100 shillings for each month' of a miscreant's intrusion. (47) From at least the 1620s, processions or 'walks' took place whereby the guild's officers and selected brethren symbolically demonstrated the extent of a guild's authority by traversing the municipal boundaries. Of especial concern on these occasions was the suppression of intruders, especially journeymen, working illegally in the city. (48) The guild officers appear to have used their considerable powers to seize intruders' goods on these processions. On a 'walking day' in 1698, for example, the officers of the weavers' guild sought to confiscate illegally produced woollen cloth. (49) In the Restoration era, the feltmakers publicly burned hats seized from illegal hat-makers during their 'walks'. Other guilds simply had their clerk record the names of intruders, and later proceeded with legal action against them. (50)

Despite these powers of enforcement, and the evident will to defend their privileges, the guilds continued to struggle with the problem of intruders. One reason was that the number was simply to great for the guilds to deal with. The problem was compounded if an intruder had influential patrons or worked out of the property of a person with high status, a problem faced by guilds elsewhere in Europe. (51) Above all the guilds were hampered by their inability to intervene in the rapidly growing liberties. Yet it was there that much of the expansion in the city's population and economy took place, especially after 1660, when the liberty of Thomas Court became increasingly industrialised. (52) Against this background, the guilds, throughout the seventeenth century and even into the early years of the next, repeatedly sought the support of the patricians in dealing with intruders. Frequent petitions to the common council denounced intruders for enjoying residence and a livelihood in the city while evading the taxes that citizens contributed in return for the same entitlements. They also, especially in the early decades of the century, presented intruders as a threat to stability and tradition. A petitioner in 1624 claimed that the city 'would be overthrown' by the actions of the intruders because the civic byelaws were being brought into contempt. (53)

The patricians, regardless of religious and political loyalties, were generally receptive to these appeals. Most mayors and aldermen, whether Catholic or Protestant, were themselves associated with one of the guilds, in particular the merchant guild. (54) They also needed the guilds to help them administer the city, through their involvement in the militia, the provision of charity and the staging of civic ceremonies. Guilds also contributed financially to the city, especially during periods of distress, such as in the 1690s. (55) The overriding reason why the civic governors of every complexion defended guild privileges, however, was the imperative need to preserve the status of the citizenship. The chief attraction of citizenship was the economic privileges it conferred. In particular, only citizens could become guild brothers. (56) If intruders could engage in trade without becoming citizens, there was little incentive for others to seek the civic franchise. This in turn would have grave consequences for municipal administration, which depended heavily both on the financial contributions of citizens and on their obligatory service as unpaid municipal officials. (57)

The patriciate responded to the threat posed by migrants who encroached on the guilds' privileges in two ways. The policy towards illegal workers and retailers within the municipal bounds was a straightforward one of physical or legal suppression. The mayor and some senior aldermen in the city held magisterial powers. (58) Any intruder who was selling a commodity was breaking a civic byelaw. Traditionally the mayor was especially active in shutting the shops and seizing the goods of these outsiders. Lord Mayor Humphrey Jervis, for example, personally closed the shops of several illicit traders in the early 1680s. (59) The ultimate sanction, as stipulated in various charters, was arrest and imprisonment. This required the cooperation of the mayor, as only he could consign prisoners to the city's jail. (60)

Towards intruders operating in the liberties, on the other hand, the civic authorities adopted a politico-judicial approach. The first tactic, especially prior to 1641, was to prosecute individual intruders, or the lords of the liberties concerned, in various courts. In the 1620s, the patriciate brought legal actions against certain intruders, in particular the city's Dutch merchants, who traded on a large scale in the liberties. (61) In other cases, individual aldermen and the city's recorder were ordered by the common council to prosecute intruders 'who offend the laws of the city'. (62) Occasionally these efforts were successful, as in 1621, when the Court of Castle Chamber ruled that one Francis Sam could be fined for illicit trading in Thomas Court. (63) Overall, however, prosecutions did little to suppress the activities of intruders. The city also sought to curtail the activities of migrants by lobbying at the English court. Especially in the early years of the century, Dublin employed a municipal agent to plead the city's case at court or with persons of influence. (64) In 1621, for example, Sir John Gough was despatched to call for royal action against intruders in the liberties. (65) On at least one occasion, in 1615, an agent secured 'the king's letter against strangers', but again such efforts appear to have had little long-term impact. (66) Indeed, by 1691, the municipal authorities admitted that the byelaws against intruders were enforced only from 'time to time'. (67)

All this would seem to indicate that the guilds and the city simply lost the battle to retain their traditional rights. However, it would be wrong to assume that the expulsion of illegal traders was ever the ultimate aim of the authorities. The possibility of achieving such an outcome was always remote. It was arguably not the fact that these artisans and traders were active in the city that antagonised the fraternities and the patricians, but that they carried on their business without the permission of a relevant guild. (68) What the guilds demanded was that that any intruder pay a fee and recognise the guilds' authority and rights. (69) This entitled them to ply their trade within the city's franchise, although under a long-standing byelaw they were not permitted to open a shop, unless they either became freemen or made a further payment for the privilege. (70) Generally, guilds in Europe adopted a similar approach to the problem of illicit workers in this era. (71) The patriciate consistently endorsed this policy of licensing non-guild craftsmen and traders, as can be seen from the close resemblance between a byelaw passed by the largely Old English elite in 1603 and one issued by the stridently Protestant civic elite in 1691. (72)

The guild records thus give only a partial impression of the policies of the patriciate and guilds towards migrants who 'intruded'. When in 1613-14 the tailors' guild fined two tailors for illegally working in the city without its permission, they also obliged them to pay for the right to continue plying their trade. Despite dramatic religious and political changes over the century, the guilds maintained this policy. During the Restoration, the fraternity of St Luke on several occasions ordered that intruders were 'to be brought in', presumably indicating that the offending individuals were to be forced to comply with its byelaws. (73) The patriciate of the city supported the licensing of outsiders who were engaged in a commercial activity related to a guild's monopoly, as they were content to see outsiders paying contributions to the various fraternities, which enabled them in turn to better aid the civic elite in the government of the city. The licensing system enabled the guilds to regulate at least some of the labour force in the liberties, and the patriciate viewed it as conducive to stability and as a way of extending some municipal influence into the seigniorial jurisdictions.

Traditionally the patricians saw the licensing system as the first step towards a newcomer becoming a citizen, and they supported the guilds in their harassment of intruders as a means of pressurising suitable immigrants to do so. (74) These new citizens would eventually assist the civic elite in carrying out the various tasks required of them by the state, the granter and guarantor of their privileges and power. The Protestant civic elite were especially keen that Protestant immigrants became citizens as a way of strengthening the 'English interest' in Dublin. (75) During the early 1650s, a war- and plague-ravaged Dublin needed citizens to contribute to the city's upkeep. As a result the patricians and guilds took action against intruders, with the result that in 1653 89 outsiders purchased the freedom of the city as opposed to only 34 in 1652. (76)

The prohibition on intruders retailing their products and services independently without payment of a fee meant that poorer skilled immigrants were in many cases obliged to become the journeymen, effectively paid employees, of guild members. In the later sixteenth century it had been illegal in Dublin to employ a non-native journeyman. By the seventeenth century, due to large-scale immigration into the city and the need to integrate the many artisans and traders into the existing system, this was no longer the case. (77) Journeymen were registered with a guild and needed a fraternity's permission to work in the city. They also paid fees, but at a lower rate than a master. The relevant guild set journeymen's wage rates and these were no doubt to the benefit of the fraternity's members. (78) Other immigrant artisans likewise became dependent upon citizens for their livelihood. In 1693, for example, a French goldsmith, Timothy Hevin, was ordered to stop trading independently and become a quarter-brother. Quarter-brothers were inferior guild members, possessing some economic but no political rights and obliged to pay dues to a guild. Hevin had to sell his work to a freeman of the goldsmith guild who then sold it in his shop. (79) No doubt, this arrangement benefited the guild member more than Hevin. Those licensed by the guilds were subordinated to the interests of the existing guild brethren and many resented their status, as indicated in the complaints of quarter-brothers in the 1690s. (80)

The guilds' membership was socially diverse. For example, the weavers' guild had a minority of independent masters but most members in 1684 were wage-earning journeymen. (81) The licensing system benefited the wealthier brothers by allowing them to employ skilled immigrants on good terms, but placed poorer masters and journeymen free of a guild at a disadvantage by favouring their larger competitors. This could lead to tensions within a guild, as was the case when European immigrants settled in English cities during this period. (82) Dublin's guilds, despite being 'brotherhoods', could be fractious bodies. In the 1660s dissenters and conformists clashed in the shoemakers' guild; some members even called for the government to remove John Boyse, one of the guild's officers, for his anti-Episcopalian views. (83) In 1674, tension within the tailors' guild between journeymen and masters over working conditions led to legal proceedings. (84) However, there is no evidence of similar conflict over the licensing of immigrants, possibly due to two guild policies. Firstly, the guilds reacted swiftly to any display of independence from journeymen. The disobedient could be 'blacklisted', or even detained at the guildhall by order of a guild officer. Secondly, the guilds mitigated the impact the licensing of immigrants had on the journeymen by generally limiting the number of apprentices intruders could employ. (85) Some also vetted the employment of non-native journeymen. The goldsmiths' guild, for example, fined a member in 1691 for employing a French artisan without its permission. (86) This limiting of apprentices and journeymen was designed to restrict competition, thus protecting the interests of the journeymen and poorer masters.

Religion, as it did in Strasbourg and many other European cities, shaped much of Dublin's history in this period and deeply affected the reception of immigrants by the guilds. (87) Until 1641, Catholics could freely become citizens and guild members. In the 1650s they were for a time expelled from the city. After 1660 large numbers settled in Dublin and other towns, and were tacitly accepted by the Protestant civic elite as essential to the economy. (88) However, the requirement that new citizens take the oath of supremacy effectively barred them from the guilds, although a minority of 'innocent Catholics', such as the barber-surgeon Walter Prendergast, who had stayed loyal to the crown during the wars of mid-century, were enfranchised and probably became guild brothers with the support of the government. (89) Catholics became citizens in significant numbers during the Jacobite regime, but after 1691 were disenfranchised and excluded from full guild membership. (90) Some Protestant non-conformists were unable to join a guild, because they found the oath of supremacy unacceptable, although many dissenters, such as Elphial Dobson, a printer, did swear it, and became guild brothers. (91) Quakers could not swear any oath and this effectively barred them from becoming free of the city or guild.

The imposition after 1660 of the oath of supremacy could have resulted in the complete exclusion from the guilds of all Catholic and some Protestant non-conformist skilled immigrants, thus threatening the whole system of monopoly. The guilds, however, responded to the religious issue in creative way, adapting the long established licensing system to deal with the increasingly complex situation. (92) Firstly, many Catholics and dissenters were admitted into guilds as quarter-brothers, and evaded swearing the oath of supremacy. The system arose on an informal basis, with guilds inviting those unable to become full brothers to attend their meetings, as in the case of the weavers' guild and the Quaker clothier Anthony Sharpe. At first, it was mainly Protestants who became quarter-brothers; the first known 'quarterer' was the Quaker Samuel Claridge. After 1690, the status of quarter-brother became increasingly associated with Catholics. (93) This policy of admitting Catholics as quarter-brothers continued until well into the 1760s. Catholics and non-conformist immigrants could also legally work in the city if they paid a yearly fee to trade. Other immigrants unable to join a guild because of the oath of supremacy became the journeymen of guild brothers. For example, Protestants employed many Catholic journeymen bakers in the 1690s. (94) By thus making it possible for licensed Catholic and non-conformist artisans and traders to work, the mainly Anglican guilds served their own interests, receiving regular payments and retaining control over certain occupations and economic activities.

This system of licensing immigrants to work in the city had important social and economic consequences. If the corporation had permitted only full members of a guild to engage in certain economic activities, it would have deterred many outsiders from establishing themselves in Dublin. This was especially the case after 1660, when Catholics and many dissenters were unable to become full guild members. The flexibility that the patricians and guilds displayed towards immigrant traders and artisans was thus central to the dramatic economic and demographic expansion of seventeenth-century Dublin. The same flexibility enabled persons from a variety of religious backgrounds to settle in a city that was increasingly dominated by an Anglican elite. (95)

Municipal and guild byelaws against illegal traders and artisans would seem to indicate that Dublin was an insular and conservative society. In part, this was true, as the civic elite defended the traditional privileges of citizens and guilds for internal political and economic purposes. However, the patriciate were also pragmatists, who used the licensing system to turn those who threatened guild monopolies into contributors to these bodies, while enabling the native citizenry largely to preserve their economic privileges. Without this flexibility, the large numbers of immigrants settling in the liberties could have undermined the position of the guilds, especially in the latter half of the century, as was the case in London and Paris. (96) Instead, because migrants could come to terms with the guilds and become associated with their activities, the fraternities generally were able to maintain their position in the city. (97) The licensing system that thus evolved continued into the eighteenth century, with immigrants being obliged to become quarter-brothers or journeymen of citizens. Non- guild members were complaining of the guilds' privileges and their policies towards outsiders as late as 1775. (98) The licensing system also enabled the Protestant elite, for a considerable period, to regulate much of the economic life of the city in its interest. The importance of licensing to the continuation of the guild system is evident in the ultimately fatal blow the guilds received when legislation outlawed their claims to regulate Catholic quarter-brothers and 'strangers'. (99)

(1) J. Gilbert (ed.), Calendar of Ancient Records of Dublin in the Possession of the Municipal Corporation (Dublin, 1889), I, pp. 60-4.

(2) Calendar of Ancient Records, I, pp. 67-9; IV, p. 48.

(3) J. Hill, From Patriots to Unionists: Dublin Civic Politics and Irish Protestant Patriotism, 1660- 1840 (Oxford, 2002), pp. 33-4.

(4) E. G. Whelan, 'The Dublin Patriciate and the Reception of Migrants in the Seventeenth Century: Civic Politics and Newcomers' (Ph.D. dissertation, National University of Ireland, Maynooth, 2008).

(5) J. J. Webb, The Guilds of Dublin (Dublin, 1928), pp. 16-17, 44.

(6) Hill, From Patriots to Unionists, pp. 30-1.

(7) G. Mac Niocaill, 'Socio-Economic Problems of the Late Medieval Irish Town', in D. Harkness and M. O'Dowd (eds), The Town in Ireland (Belfast, 1981), pp. 11, 17.

(8) Calendar of Ancient Records, III, p. 19.

(9) R. Gillespie, Seventeenth-Century Ireland (Dublin, 2006), p. 253; Calendar of Ancient Records, III, p. xxi; Nicholas Canny, Making Ireland British (Oxford, 2001), pp. 201-2.

(10) S. Pender, A 'Census' of Ireland, circa 1659 (Dublin, 1939), pp. 134-9.

(11) Whelan, 'The Dublin Patriciate and the Reception of Migrants'.

(12) Calendar of Ancient Records, III, p. 312.

(13) Ibid., II, p. 358; IV, p. 63; V, pp. 94, 187, 394, 419.

(14) Ibid., II, pp. 358, 396; III, pp. 105, 113; VI, p. 85.

(15) Ibid., II, pp. 358, 396; III, pp. 33, 37, 106; IV, p. 144; V, p. 345; VI, p. 85.

(16) Ibid., I, pp. 227, 412, 422.

(17) C. R. Friedrichs, Urban Politics in Early Modern Europe (London, 2000), pp. 44-5; C. Gross, The Trinity Guild (London, 1899), pp. 134, 183, 264; P. R. Hoffman, 'In Defence of Corporate Liberties: Early Modern Guilds and the Problem of Illicit Artisan Work', Urban History, 34 (2007), 77-9.

(18) Calendar of Ancient Records, III, p. 303; VI, p. 215.

(19) H. Berry, 'The Merchant Tailors' Guild-that of St John the Baptist, Dublin, 1418-1841',

Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland (hereafter RSAI jour.), 30 (1901), 26.

(20) Dublin City Archives (hereafter DCA),MS 78, Charters and Documents of the Guild of the Holy

Trinity or Merchant Guild of Dublin, pp. 112, 116; Historical Manuscripts Commission, Report on the Manuscripts of the Earl of Egmont (London, 1905), I, pp. 71, 72.

(21) Berry, 'The Merchant Tailors' Guild', 27.

(22) B. Eustace and O. Goodbody (eds), Quaker Records Dublin: Abstracts of Wills (Dublin, 1957), no. 8.

(23) DCA, MS 78, pp. 110-30; Gillespie, Seventeenth-Century Ireland, p. 244.

(24) V. Treadwell, The Irish Commission of 1622 (Dublin, 2006), p. 14.

(25) M. A. E. Green (ed. ), Calendar of State Papers Domestic, 1665-6 (London, 1886), p. 156.

(26) J. Gilbert, A History of the City of Dublin (Dublin, 1862), I, pp. 188-9, 377-80.

(27) National Archives of Ireland (hereafter NAI), M6118a, Copies of Entries from Register Book of the Guild of Feltmakers, 1668-1771, fos 2-4; Berry, 'The Merchant Tailors' Guild', 34.

(28) Calendar of Ancient Records, II, p. 37; III, p. 106; IV, p. 108.

(29) Ibid., I, pp. 43, 45, 141-2.

(30) C. H. Firth and R. S. Raith (eds), Acts and Ordinances of the Interregnum, 1642-1660 (London, 1911), II, pp. 355-7.

(31) Calendar of Ancient Records, III, pp. 54, 72, 298; Webb, The Guilds of Dublin, pp. 44, 144, 146.

(32) C. R. Friedrichs, The Early Modern City, 1450-1750 (London, 1995), pp. 31-2; S. Kaplan, 'Guilds, "False workers" and the Fauborg Saint-Antoine', in J. McClain (ed.), Edo and Paris: Urban life and the State in the Early Modern Era (London, 1994), p. 359.

(33) DCA, MS 78, p. 118; Gilbert, A History of Dublin, I, p. 113.

(34) NAI, M6118a, fos 2-4.

(35) Egmont Manuscripts, I, pp. 3-4; Yoh Kawann, 'Trade, Sociability and Governance in an English

Incorporated Borough: "Formal" and "Informal" Worlds in Leicester, 1570-1640', Urban History, 33 (2006), 224-7.

(36) J. Webb, Industrial Dublin since 1698 (Dublin, 1918), pp. 55-6; Remains Historical and Literary, connected with the Palatine Counties of Lancaster and Chester (Manchester, 1883), XXIV, pp. 20-1.

(37) Whelan, 'The Dublin Patriciate and the Reception of Migrants', pp. 203-6.

(38) Eustace and Goodbody (eds), Quaker Records Dublin: Abstracts of Wills, nos. 7, 16, 34, 175, 188.

(39) Calendar of Ancient Records, V, p. 398.

(40) Ibid., III, p. 113.

(41) Egmont Manuscripts, I, pp. 71, 72.

(42) Whelan, 'The Dublin Patriciate and the Reception of Migrants', p. 314.

(43) Berry, 'The Merchant Tailors' Guild', 22-3.

(44) E. Cheeney, English Towns and Guilds: A Sourcebook (Philadelphia, 1895), II, pp. 25, 48, 104, 186; M. Davies, 'Governors and Government: The Practice of Power in the Merchant Taylors' Company', in I. Gadd and P. Wallis (eds), Guilds, Society and Economy in London, 1450-1800 (London, 2002), pp. 67-71.

(45) C. W. Russell and J. P. Prendergast (eds), Calendar of State Papers, Ireland, 1611-14 (London, 1877), pp. 196-8, 268-89, 559.

(46) Berry, 'The Merchant Tailors' Guild', 26.

(47) Calendar of Ancient Records, III, pp. 22, 33; H. Berry, 'The Ancient Corporation of Barber

Surgeons or Guild of St Magdalene, Dublin', RSAI Jour., 33 (1903), 234.

(48) Calendar of Ancient Records, III, p. 26; W. C. Stubbs, 'The Weavers Guild: The Guild of the

Blessed Virgin Mary, Dublin, 1446-1840', RSAI Jour., 49 (1919), 67; R. L. Greaves, Anthony Sharpe: Dublin's Merchant Quaker and the Community of Friends (Stanford, 1997), p. 80; NAI, M6118a, fo. 32.

(49) Many of these were French Huguenots. See Greaves, Anthony Sharpe, p. 57.

(50) Berry, 'The Merchant Tailors' Guild', 35; Henry Berry, 'The Records of the Feltmakers'

Company', RSAI Jour., 41 (1911), 33.

(51) Hoffman, 'In Defence of Corporate Liberties', 76.

(52) Rowena Dudley, 'The Cheney Letters, 1682-5', Irish Economic and Social History, 23 (1996),

97-100.

(53) Calendar of Ancient Records, III, pp. 120-1.

(54) Gross, The Trinity Guild, pp. 134-7.

(55) DCA, MS 78, pp. 101, 175.

(56) Calendar of Ancient Records, III, p. 440; Royal Irish Academy (hereafter RIA), MS 12 D 4, 'The bye laws of the city of Dublin', fo. 153.

(57) Calendar of Ancient Records, VI, pp. 84-5.

(58) RIA, MS 12 D 4, fos 1, 4, 11.

(59) Calendar of Ancient Records, III, p. 106; Greaves, Anthony Sharpe, p. 88; DCA, MS 78, pp. 167, 168.

(60) RIA, MS 12 D 4, fo. 1.

(61) R. Loeber, 'English and Irish Sources for the History of Dutch Economic Activity in Ireland, 1600-89', Irish Economic and Social History, 8 (1981), 70-3.

(62) Calendar of Ancient Records, III, pp. 55, 69, 200, 273.

(63) Ibid., I, pp. 200-2.

(64) Ibid., II, p. 189; III, pp. 36, 53, 115.

(65) Historical Manuscripts Commission, Franciscan Manuscripts held at Merchant Quay, Dublin (London, 1908), p. 81.

(66) Calendar of Ancient Records, III, pp. 53, 64.

(67) Ibid., VI, p. 81.

(68) Ibid., II, p. 396.

(69) Ibid., II, p. 396; VI, p. 84; Webb, The Guilds of Dublin, pp. 146-7; Berry, 'The Ancient Corporation of Barber Surgeons', 230; George Blackhall, Rules for the Assizing of Bread (Dublin, 1696), pp. 11-13.

(70) Calendar of Ancient Records, III, pp. 101, 483; VI, pp. 84-5.

(71) Hoffman, 'In Defence of Corporate Liberties', 82; Kaplan, 'Guilds, "False Workers" ', p. 353.

(72) Calendar of Ancient Records, II, p. 396; VI, pp. 24, 123.

(73) M. Pollard, A Dictionary of Members of the Dublin Book Trade (Dublin, 2000), pp. 173, 308, 372, 559.

(74) Calendar of Ancient Records, II, p. 396.

(75) Ibid., IV, pp. 5-6; V, p. 202; VI, p. 124.

(76) Ibid., IV, pp. 70-1; Whelan, 'The Dublin Patriciate and the Reception of Migrants'.

(77) Calendar of Ancient Records, II, pp. 230, 256.

(78) NAI, M6118a, fos 6, 8, 10; Pollard, Dublin Book Trade, pp. 119, 121, 160, 181, 397; Blackhall, Rules for Assizing, p. 14.

(79) H. Berry, 'The Goldsmiths' Company of Dublin', RSAI Jour., 31 (1901), 131.

(80) M. Mac Geehan, 'The Catholics of the Towns and the Quarterage Dispute in Eighteenth-Century Ireland', Irish Historical Studies, 7 (1952), 96.

(81) Greaves, Anthony Sharpe, p. 76.

(82) R. Esser, ' "They Obey all Magistrates and all Good Lawes": Migrants and Urban Stability in Early Modern English Towns', Urban History, 34 (2007), 65, 67.

(83) Historical Manuscripts Commission, Tenth Report (London, 1885), appendix V, pp. 29, 32-3.

(84) NAI, M303, The Journeymen Tailors of Dublin versus the Fraternity of St John the Baptist, 18 September 1674.

(85) Ibid.; Webb, The Guilds of Dublin, p. 123.

(86) Berry, 'The Goldsmiths' Company', 132.

(87) H. Sonkvajarvi, 'From German-speaking Catholics to French Carpenters: Strasbourg Guilds and the Role of Confessional Boundaries in the Exclusion and Inclusion of Foreigners in the Eighteenth Century', Urban History, 35 (2008), 206.

(88) S. J. Connolly, Religion, Law and Power: The Making of Protestant Ireland, 1660-1760 (Oxford, 1992), p. 32.

(89) Berry, 'The Ancient Corporation of Barber Surgeons', 230.

(90) Whelan, 'The Dublin Patriciate and the Reception of Migrants', pp. 203-4.

(91) Pollard, Dublin Book Trade, p. 234.

(92) For another example of the pragmatism of guilds on issues of religion see Sonkajarvi, 'From German-speaking Catholics', 207-8.

(93) Webb, The Guilds of Dublin, pp. 211-14.

(94) Blackhall, Rules for Assizing, pp. 11, 13.

(95) Webb, The Guilds of Dublin, p. 148; Calendar of Ancient Records, I, p. 59; IV, pp. 34, 198.

(96) Cheeney, English Towns and Guilds, II, p. 25.

(97) Mac Geehan, 'The Catholics of the Towns', 119.

(98) Freeman's Journal, 19 October 1775.

(99) Mac Geehan, 'The Catholics of the Towns', 113-15.
COPYRIGHT 2012 Sage Publications, Inc.
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2012 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Whelan, Edward
Publication:Irish Economic and Social History
Article Type:Essay
Geographic Code:4EUIR
Date:Dec 1, 2012
Words:6342
Previous Article:Witchcraft belief and trials in early modern Ireland.
Next Article:Migration and medical education: Irish medical students at the University of Glasgow, 1859-1900.
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2021 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters