THE WOOLLEN MANAFACTURE IN THE OLDEN TIME.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XII, Issue 100, 30 April 1877, Page 4

THE WOOLLEN MANAF ACTURE IN THE OLDEN TIME.

In the reign of Henry VIII., the woollen trade was generally in a most flourishing state, and the worsted manufacture especially increased rapidly. One " Jack of Newbury " was deemed the greatest clothier in England. He waa the owner of 100 looms, and is said to have equipped as many men-at-arms for the Scottish wars at his own cost. York, then the next city to London in population and wealth, had long been deemed the great seat of the woollen trade in the Northern Counties. At this time it should be observed that the freedom of trade and industry were wholly unknown. Guilds, or co-opera-tive bodies, monopolised every trade or calling; the character of legislation was bad, and was, indeed, only tolerable because tbat of other countries was equally bad, or worse. The exportation of sheep was prohibited " for divers good oauses and considerations," and in the following reign tbe export of white - cloths was prohibited, in order to give a boon to our dyers; but otber countries adopted the same narrow policy, and, by prohibiting the importation of British dyed cloths, defeated the intended monopoly. Another Act, passed in the reign of Henry VIII,, enacted that " cloth of every kind was to be fairly manufactured, without fulling, knotting, or burling, that it might hot be overstrained to give it the appearance of greater length or breadth than it ought to have; nor made to deceive the. sight by putting flonr of starch or chalk upon it, that the same might seem to be whiter than it really was." The Welsh came in for their share of blame, for it is enacted, " Welsh cloths shall be folded as the cloths of other counties," for the statute recites "That they had been used to be so craftily and hard rolled together, that the buyer could not perceive tbe untone making thereof." In the- reign of Mary an Act recites "That the rich and wealthy clothiers did oppress the poor weavers by setting up and keeping in their houses divers looms, and by lowering tbeir wages;" it, therefore enacted *• That no clothier out of a borough or market town ehall have above one loom; no weaver dwelling oot of a city shall have above two; no weaver shall be either tucker, fuller, or dyer; no fuller, tucker, or dresser, shall keep a loom;" and so on." Amongst other Acts passed in Queen Elisabeth's reign affecting the making of cloth, was one " abolishing a certain deceitful stuff need in dyeing of cloth, tb wit — logwood." which it seems the people of England did not understand how to use properly. In the reign of King James, 1613, a tract, entitled a declaration of the estate of clothing now used within this realm of England, by John May, a Daputy Aulnager," discloses some curious particulars as to the state of the trade. For instance, he writes of cloth-makers: — "But corrupting time not only infected this fraternity with a knowledge of deceit, but also stirred other intruders in this trade to usurp tbe name of clothiers, and to supply their want of knowledge by well studied fraud." Amongst other abases that had crept in he charges the following: — "Mingling wooi of divers kinds, as fleece-wool, fell, or skin wool, and lamb's wool, which are contraire one to another, and make the cloth uneven." •« Mingling of fine flax with long wools, yat course, which being carded together, doth bold spinning and working, but most deceitful in use and wearing. " The uee of short thrums, which they take and shred into short lengths, and then lay it to steepe in strong lye or liquor, which openeth the threads into wool again; and then card it with other wool which is worse than the flaxe, by making more uneven in the spinning.'' " They have a practice in their woofe to shut in fine woofe at both ends of their cloth, which serveth for a pattern to ehewe; but all the rest of the cloth far worse." "If a cloth will not thick kindly in the mill, by reason of its defects, then they bave medicine to heal it, with oatmeale and and such like, which will remain in the cloth, and make it seem fast and thick in the hand, until it come to the dressing, when all tbat stopping vanisheih, leaving it to shame by the true sight of its substance." " When cloths have been too much strained the tenter-hooks leave an evident mark which would plainly tell where they had been aud how used; but they have a trick to hiJe that fault, for with a wet clothe and hotte iron, they overruonj those lists, which shutteth up the raarkes or tongues of

the tenrer, as that they shall tell no tales." These and maoy other " tricks of the trade" are exposed with an uusparing hand, which shows that Mr John May must have been behind the scenes, and to have been placed under his-iospection must have been a sore trial to the crafty clothier. The woollen manufacture declined apace from 1620 to 1688. The legislation of the Commonwealth was just as nowise as that of the Stuarts. The exportation of wool, fuller's earth, and all the materials of manufacture was prevented, and it seems never to have entered the minds of the promoters and framers of these laws that other nations could produce these articles; nor waa it until about the year 1660 that the superiority of Spanish wool was admitted, when our manufacturers began to mix it with English woo!, to the great improvement of the clolb. Bad legislation continued its work until it had paralysed the trade. And the narrow-minded politicans of the time not only ruined trade here, but dealt equally unwisely with the sister isle of Ireland, Many acta of Parliament were passed which were very oppressive to the Irish. They were forbidden tp export their oattle to Eogland, and on their turning tbeir attention to the breeding of sheep, tbe exportation of their wool to any country except England was prohibited, and as there was already a superfluity of wool there, they could $nd no sale for it. Some clothiers from the West of England, induced by. (be low price. ot wool and the cheapness of living in Ireland, removed thither and, established the manufacture of cloth in Dublin aud other places; but this was resented as a still greater it) jury to England, and we find an Irish gentleman writing to bis brother in England complaining of this oppressive treatment, and thus stating hia grievance — '.'What waa lawful for ue, and profitable to you (the cattle trade) you prohibited ; what ygu constrain as to the sheep breeding you accuse; you are neither well, full, nor fasting, I know not what you would have unless you could furnish us with a breed of sheep jthat bore no fleeces." In the reign of Charles 11., a singular Act of Parliament was passed with a view to encourage the declining v. trade, ordering that all deceased persons should ba buried in woollen shrouds, and a writer thns expatiating on the good results to be expected from it, says — "The late statute for burying in woollen, if duly put intexoeution, will consume much of our wool, and preserve the linen cloth for the making of paper, which witl save this nation some hundred thousand pounds a year." There were, however, some with more enlarged view than those generally entertained, for we find a Sir Josiah Child, in 1667, advocating a repeal of all the lawß restraining freedom of manufacture as being hindrance iustead of helps to the enlargment of the trade, writes as follows: — -"But some may aek me whether I think it would be tor the advantage of tbe trade of England to leave all men at liberty to make what cloths aod stuffs they please, how they will where and when they.. will, °of any length or sizes? I answer, 'Yes certainly, in my judgment, it would be so.' "