A HISTORY OF BERKSHIRE 



and as free as the northern traders. 1 They 

 showed also their willingness to learn from 

 their competitors. In 1624 they agreed that 

 two of their number should have 40^. allowed 

 them ' towards their charges in travelling 

 into the West countryes to view the manner of 

 making their white cloth.' A certain thriftiness 

 is also displayed on the part of the members 

 of the corporation, inasmuch as there is an 

 order that, if their representatives ' spend not 

 so much, they shall restore the overplus upon 

 accomptes.' a 



Various entries refer to the loans to clothiers 

 provided by John Kendrick's will. Thus in 

 1626 James Winche receives 200, and 

 Walter Bye, Richard Stamp, and William 

 Blackeall 100 each. William Kendrick, the 

 son of the benefactor, sold his house with all 

 his goods belonging to his trade of clothing to 

 the corporation. The evidence in a pretty 

 quarrel about the milling and dressing of 

 cloth in 1628 shows that Mr. Kendrick 

 and Mr. Winche had mills at Burghfield for 

 the milling and dressing of cloth. 



The munificent bequest of John Kendrick 

 instead of promoting the trade of cloth-making 

 in the town was eventually the cause of its 

 failure. Though the money was devised for 

 the sole use of the poorer class of manufacturers, 

 yet the greater part of it was soon appropriated 

 by the members of the corporation or dis- 

 posed to their friends amongst the clothiers, 

 who being enabled, from the capitals thus 

 possessed, to undersell their competitors, occa- 

 sioned much discontent. The inhabitants 

 petitioned the Government in 14 Charles I., 

 and showed that these fortunate and wealthy 

 clothiers, aided by the Kendrick monies, ' were 

 enabled to pay dearer rates for their stock 

 than other poor clothiers can afford to give, 

 and to sell their cloth at a lower rate] than 

 the rest could afford to sell at, whereby they 

 have got into their hands the greatest part of 

 the trade, and all the rest of the clothiers, 

 which is the greatest number, are for the 

 most part of the poorer sort, and for whose 

 benefit the legacy was principally intended, 

 are much prejudiced and impoverished, and 

 are likely by the unequal division of the said 

 stock to be driven out of their trades. And 

 by this means there are not so many clothes 

 made in the town by near a third part, as were 

 before the legacy was given, and those worser 

 wrought than formerly they were wont to 

 be, which turns to his majesty's great loss in 

 his customs, and to the decay of trading in 

 that flourishing town.' 3 The Archbishop 



1 Rec. of Reading, ii. 159. 2 Ibid. ii. 188. 

 3 Man, Hist, of Reading, pp. 155, 156. 



of Canterbury reported to the king in his 

 judgment and confirmed most of the con- 

 tentions of the petitioners. He wrote : ' I find 

 it confessed that the town makes fewer cloths 

 now than it did before this great stock was 

 given unto it. So the trade decays by the 

 abuse of this money, and the king loseth his 

 customs ; and this decay is near a third part. 

 I conceive this decay comes by unequal 

 divisions of this great stock, by which means 

 they which have a greater portion of it out- 

 buy all the younger and poorer clothiers, for 

 whose benefit principally this stock was given, 4 

 who are, contrary to the donor's intent, 

 almost undone by it.' The report makes 

 sundry suggestions for the better manage- 

 ment of the fund, which were ordered by 

 the court, but only partially carried into 

 effect. 



The clamour of the poor spinners and 

 carders continued. Strict orders were issued 

 that all weaving, burling, shearing and dress- 

 ing should be given to the poor weavers, 

 burlers and workfolk in the town, and not 

 sent into the country under a penalty of 



IOJ. 



Petitions were presented to the king by 

 clothiers from different counties in 1630 for 

 liberty of trade, the industry being languishing, 

 and Richard Stampe took charge of that from 

 Reading. When the Civil War broke out 

 and Sir Arthur Aston was Governor of the 

 town in 1643, ' he declayred his Majesty's good 

 intentions to the clothiers of Reading, and 

 granted them free liberty to trade in London 

 without the let or hindrance of his Majesty 

 or any of his armies.' 5 But such freedom 

 of trade came too late when the trade itself 

 was gone. Kendrick's gift was the chief 

 cause of its decline. The Civil War killed it, 

 and Reading ceased to be one of the chief 

 manufacturing centres in the west of Eng- 

 land. 



At Wallingford the clothing trade was 

 carried on from early times. Henry de Mont- 

 fort in the thirteenth century was a weaver 

 who exchanged the Hospital of St. John, a 

 tenement situate in the parish of St. Peter, for 

 a common messuage in the corn-market. 

 Cloth was evidently sold in the market in 

 1233, as one burgess made a complaint that 

 he was accused of stealing the same. 8 Clothiers 

 appear on the list of traders, or companies 

 representing traders, as early as 1227, together 

 with weavers and fullers, and in 1265 we find 

 mention of the arconarii or woolcombers. 



Ibid. p. 157. 



B Rec. of Reading, iv. 75. 



Hist. MSS. Com. Rep. vi., App. p. 573. 



392 



