A HISTORY OF SURREY 



not been wont to be made for ten years pre- 

 viously, and one John Channell accused of 

 clothmaking there.* But the instance appears 

 to be unique and possibly was a test case 

 raised by an informer who had forgotten or 

 did not know that in the Act of 1557-8, 

 regulating the making of woollen cloths, 

 Godalming had been especially mentioned as 

 a town where cloths had been usually made 

 by the space of twenty years last past.* In 

 Hilary term 1562-3, six clothiers, all of 

 them members of the two well-known Surrey 

 families of clothmakers, the Hookes and 

 Chittys, were accused of having within the 

 previous ten years carried on their industry of 

 kersey weaving at Thursley, Pitfold and 

 Frensham, and over the Hampshire and Sus- 

 sex borders at Aldershot, Linchmere, Bram- 

 shott and Headley.' When arraigned how- 

 ever they were all described as of Godalming. 

 In this instance we have a virtual admission 

 of the charge, for they all petitioned to be 

 allowed to make a reasonable fine for the 

 offence in order to save themselves further 

 expense and trouble. After this for some 

 considerable time we hear little more of 

 trouble in Surrey upon this account, but in 

 1606 attention seems to have been again 

 aroused to the matter. In that year eight 

 Surrey clothiers were accused of kersey-mak- 

 ing outside the towns, namely Henry Wake- 

 ford,* William Rogers ' and Nicholas Monger,' 

 all of Wonersh, Richard Cobbett of Ash,' 

 Thomas Lashford of Stoke,' John Waltam 

 of Shalford," and Thomas and Ralph Chal- 

 croft of Chiddingfold.*" To these must be 

 added in 1607 John Tayler of Wonersh," 

 Nicholas Smythe of Stoke,*' and John White 

 perhaps also of Wonersh.*' 



Another common oEFence, and one which 

 in view both of the early and later history of 

 the industry is of special interest, was that of 

 stretching the cloths by means of unlawful 

 instruments. Aubrey speaks of this offence 

 as having been the ruin more particularly of 

 the Guildford and Wonersh clothiers. But in 

 1565 no less than twelve Godalming manu- 

 facturers were accused of having used tentorsor 

 wrenches, ropes and rings to strain and stretch 

 their cloths. The list includes the names of 



» Exch. K. R. Mem. R. Trin. 3 Eliz. 40. 



> Stat. 4 and 5 Phil. & Marv, cap. 5, § 25. 



> Exch. K. R. Mem. R. Mil. 5 Eliz. 185-7. 

 « Ibid. East. 4 Jas. I. 1 54. s ibid. 



• Ibid. Trin. 45. 7 Ibid. East. 153. 



« Ibid. 155. « Ibid. 



" Ibid. Mich. 191. 



" Ibid. Mich. S Jas. I. 141. la Ibid. 



" Ibid. 35 ; the place is given as Wenys, co. 

 Suit., possibly an error. 



344 



members of such well known Surrey families 

 as those of Chitty, Hooke, Mellersh (Mellyshe), 

 Wood, and Chaundler. There are also John 

 Brodford of ' Brodgate * and John Allen of 

 Farnham.'* In 1569 five Farnham clothiers 

 were charged with similar offences." Again 

 for a time there is a lull in the prosecutions, 

 either because they had already had a suffi- 

 ciently deterrent effect, or perhaps because they 

 had not proved remunerative enough to the in- 

 former. But again with the accession of the 

 first Stuart sovereign interest was re-awakened 

 in the matter, and in 1607 an information was 

 lodged against Thomas West of Guildford, 

 because he had in his keeping and used a 

 certain instrument (y^n^AV^, 'a tenter') with a 

 lower bar and other engines, wherewith 100 

 cloths of white wool called kerseys, rough 

 and unwrought and made for sale at Guildford, 

 were stretched and strained in breadth and 

 length.*' Two other Guildford clothiers, 

 William Figge and Robert Kateringham," 

 were charged with similar practices in the 

 following year, and in Michaelmas term 

 161 o no less than seven,*' to be followed 

 in Hilary term 1610— i by five others'* were 

 summoned from the same town to answer to 

 informations against them of having used ' a 

 certaine engine called a rope,' and other un- 

 lawful instruments for stretching cloth. 



In addition to this trouble of stretching the 

 cloths to an undue extent there was the old 

 difficulty of restricting their length to that 

 required by statute. The reason for insisting 

 upon this restriction is given in the preamble 

 of the Act of 1572 to reform the excessive 

 length of kerseys.*" It is there explained that 

 the customs and subsidies of kerseys were 

 answered according to the number of pieces 

 or whole kerseys and not according to the 

 number of yards in each piece. Ordinary 

 kerseys had not usually contained above 

 17, and the finer sort called ' sorting kerseys' 

 above 18 yards. But certain merchant 

 strangers and others engaged in the export 

 trade of kerseys had of late devised and pro- 

 cured to have kerseys of much greater lengths, 

 as of 25 and 26 yards and more, thereby de- 

 ceiving the queen of a third part of her 

 customs and subsidies. A maximum length 

 of 1 8 yards was therefore laid down for all 

 kerseys with an allowance for accidental cases 

 provided the cloths did not exceed 19 yards 



" Ibid. East. 7 Eliz. 102, 104, iii, 117-22. 

 " Ibid. East, ii Eliz. 153, 154, 168. 

 " Ibid. Mich. 5 Jas. I. 219. 

 " Ibid. Mich. 6 Jas. I. 351. 

 '» Ibid. Mich. 8 Jas. I. 51-4. 

 " Ibid. Hil. 74-6. 

 Stat. 14 Eliz. cap. 10. 



