INDUSTRIES 



Woods of Godalming, clothier, devised to his 

 kinsman John Woods his messuage and dye- 

 house with the vats, furnaces and all other 

 implements and things belonging to the dye- 

 ing trade and dyehouse, as also his shears and 

 shearing boards, cloth press and parchment 

 for pressing of cloth, and all his racks for dry- 

 ing of cloth and all other his implements and 

 tools used about his shearing trade.' 



The reputation of the Surrey clothiers and 

 dyers at the beginning of the seventeenth 

 century was such that when in 1608 a com- 

 mission was considering the merits of a sup- 

 posed new invention for dyeing wool their 

 opinion as to the originality and excellence of 

 the invention was especially invited. The 

 feature of the invention was the use of chalk, 

 and the commissioners had already heard its 

 advocates on the one hand and the dyers of 

 London on the other, when on 8 December 

 they wrote to Lawrence Stoughton and 

 Lawrence Elliot requiring them to call before 

 them some discreet clothiers of Surrey, whom 

 they took to be the persons principally in- 

 terested in the invention, to take their advice 

 and opinions. They were to report as to 

 the novelty of the invention and to ascertain 

 whether it would make a good and durable 

 colour at small cost, for which purpose trial 

 of it was to be made by some of the dyers of 

 Guildford.^' 



In 1630 we have light thrown on the 

 method taken by the Surrey clothiers to dis- 

 pose of their cloth, and also have the first 

 hint of that decay in their industry which 

 Aubrey notices everywhere at the end of the 

 century. On 26 November of that year a 

 petition was forwarded to the Privy Council 

 from Philip West, John Perior, Joshua Perior, 

 Lawrence Hackman, John Woods, Robert 

 Chitty, Henry Chitty, Henry Monger, 

 Nathaniel Webham, Timothy Chitty and 

 other inhabitants in and near Godalming.' 

 The petitioners represent themselves as 

 clothiers who had for many years previously 

 until now of late maintained 1,400 poor 

 people at the least in spinning of wools, 

 weaving, working, making, dyeing, fulling, 

 and dressing of cloths called Hampshire 

 kerseys. For many years they had sold these 

 kerseys to one Samuel Vassall, a merchant in 

 London, who vented them beyond the seas. 



his will dated 23 August 161 2, proved P.C.C. 12 

 December 16 12 {Termer, 1 1 1). I am indebted to 

 R. Garraway Rice, Esq., F.S.A., for these parti- 

 culars of the Daborne family. 



» Prob. Archd. Ct. of Surrey, 16 Nov. 1685. 



2 S.P. Dom. Jas. I. xxxviii. 13. 



3 Ibid. Chas. I. clxxv. lOJ. 



But Vassall for some cause or another was 

 now in duress, and as no other merchant was 

 forthcoming to take up the trade, the peti- 

 tioners found themselves compelled to desist 

 from clothing and to take some other course 

 for their maintenance, whilst all the while 

 they were pitifully importuned with sobs and 

 tears in a time of scarcity and dearth by the 

 said number of poor people for work to 

 relieve them and their families from starva- 

 tion. The Lords of the Council were prayed 

 to make some order for the venting of the 

 cloths. 



As a result of this petition, on 30 Novem- 

 ber following the Lords wrote to the magis- 

 trates of Surrey living near Godalming direct- 

 ing them to relieve the unemployed by 

 collections in the several parishes of the 

 county.* A month later, on 30 December, 

 the justices, who had in the meantime been 

 themselves petitioned by the clothiers of 

 Godalming and Wonersh, made answer that 

 they did indeed find that very little cloth had 

 been made of late in these two parishes in 

 comparison with the great quantity that had 

 erstwhile been made and uttered there ; that 

 no less than 1,100 persons in the county 

 were in distress from this cause besides a great 

 number who depended upon them in the ad- 

 joining counties. But so great was the 

 number of the distressed and so poor the 

 parishes around that it was inconceivable 

 that these parishes could support such an 

 increase of charge, as it was presumed would 

 be entailed by the collections proposed by the 

 Lords.^ William Elliot, one of the justices, 

 writing more particularly on 10 January 

 1630— I, confirms this opinion as to the pre- 

 valent distress and the inability of the parishes 

 to contribute, and adds that the number of 

 those likely to be thrown into want in a 

 short time would amount to no less than 

 3,000 persons.' 



In connection with the fact to be inferred 

 from these proceedings, that the whole of 

 the cloth trade of at least two important 

 parishes had been in the hands of one man, 

 it may be remarked that a somewhat similar 

 state of aflairs seems to be revealed in 1587, 

 when we learn that sundry clothiers of Surrey 

 and Hampshire had petitioned the Council 

 against one Andrew Marche of London, who 

 was indebted to them in such great sums of 

 money that his intent, as they believed, to 

 defraud them must mean their undoing. The 



« Loseley MSS. {Hist. MSS. Com. Rep. vii. 

 App. ii. p. 677). 



= S.P. Dom. Chas. I. clxxvii. 56, 56 i. 

 ' Ibid, clxxxii. 38. 



347 



