INDUSTRIES 



assessment of 1593 to 1595 ^° have been a 

 man of some substance, and to have had 

 several other aliens in his employ. James 

 Chibball in his will, proved 7 October 1606, 

 mentions his *two meadowes grounde and 

 walles ' in the parish of St. Mary Magdalen, 

 Bermondsey, then in the tenure of Jacob 

 Hoste.' The next reference we have found 

 to the trade in Surrey is in the will of Adrian 

 CoUant, who was buried at Mitcham on 13 

 January 1620-1. He is described in the 

 burial entry in the parish register as ' Adrian 

 Gallant, a Dutchman dwelling a long tyme 

 in this Parish of Mitcham,' and in his nun- 

 cupative will proved in the Archdeaconry 

 Court of Surrey on 2 1 February of the same 

 year * as ' Adrian CoUant of Mitcham in the 

 Countye of Surrey whitster.' 



Later in the century we find that the 

 trade was still carried on, for Henry White 

 of Mitcham, weaver, in his will dated 21 

 January 1653-4^ mentions his sister 'Suzan 

 Hore late wife of Thomas Hore of Mitcham 

 aforesaid Whister,' to whom he leaves 40^. 

 and six pounds of yarn, a legacy which he 

 subsequently revoked by codicil dated 28 

 June 1654. A few years afterwards James 

 Parry, in his will dated 15 December 1659,* 

 describes himself as of Mitcham, whitster, 

 and citizen and leather-seller of London. It 

 would seem that the trade carried good social 

 position, for in the entry in the parish 

 register recording his death on 19 September 

 [an error for December] 1659 he is called ' of 

 Mitcham in the County of Surrey, gent.' 



Towards the end of the seventeenth cen- 

 tury we have evidence that both in South- 

 wark and Wandsworth the bleaching industry 

 was carried on. Thus William Hill is 

 described in his will dated 10 and signed 11 

 November 1673* as of St. Olave's, South- 

 wark, whitster. He was buried however at 

 Mitcham on 23 November 1674, and is 

 described in the register as * Mr. William 

 Hill of St. Olave's Parish, Southwark.' 

 Similarly his wife, who was buried in the 

 same place on 3 May 1695, is entered as 

 ' M*^ Anne Hill,' the addition of the title in 

 each case being somewhat unusual, and 

 arguing in these and some other cases of 

 bleachers and calico printers mentioned in 

 this register no mean social status. Mrs. 

 Hill was a sister of Theophilus Deacon of 



1 P.C.C. {SiaforJ, 71). See Surr. Arch. Coll. 

 xii. 194. 



2 Stoughton, 341. 



3 Prob. P.C.C. 27 July 1654 {Alchin, 219). 

 • Ibid. 26 April 1660 {Nabbs, 63). 



» Ibid. 20 November, 1674 {Bunce, 126). 



Lambeth, victualler, and daughter of William 

 Deacon of Mitcham, shoemaker. * Of Wands- 

 worth, whitster,' was Richard Pillett, so 

 described in his will dated 15 August 1673.' 



One further example of a seventeenth cen- 

 tury Mitcham whitster occurs in the case of 

 John Denier, who was buried at Mitcham 

 'in woollen' on 30 October 1695. He is 

 described as John Dennyer of Mitcham . . . 

 whitster' in his will dated 4 October 1695.' 

 His wife was Bridget Denier, buried at 

 Mitcham 21 January 1 700-1. In her will* 

 she mentions her copyhold tenements in 

 Mitcham and her little house in Cheam, 

 which latter was then in the occupation of a 

 blacksmith. Such particulars as to property 

 and those also which can be adduced during 

 the course of the next century as to the 

 social standing of their relatives are interest- 

 ing because they tend to prove that the in- 

 dustry which the master men among the 

 Surrey bleachers and calico printers were then 

 engaged in was one of no little importance 

 and extent. But before proceeding to our 

 account of the bleaching industry in the 

 eighteenth century it will be convenient here 

 to consider our earliest notices of the sister 

 industry, that of the calico printers. 



Calico printing has been instanced as one 

 of the arts in which our gain from the settle- 

 ment in our country of the French refugees 

 was most noticeable.® According to Ander- 

 son, the first appearance of the industry 

 amongst us occurs in 1676 at Richmond, 

 Surrey ; but on better authority the date ot 

 the origin of this small establishment, which 

 seems to have been started by a Frenchman, 

 is about the year 1690."' It is clear however 

 that the art of staining or painting linen 

 cloth was known in England long before 

 this, even as early as the sixteenth century ; 

 and in regard to calicoes there was at least an 

 attempt to introduce a means of ornamenting 

 them in 1634, when Charles I. granted a 

 patent to Jerome Lanier for the art or mis- 

 tery of affixing wool, silk and other materials 

 of divers colours upon linen, silk or cotton 

 cloth, leather and other substances, by means 



» Ibid. 17 October 1673 {Pye, 130). 



' Ibid. 15 November 1695 {Irby, 175). 



8 Dated 13 December 1700, proved P.C.C. 

 23 January 1700— I (Dyer, 4), by her executor, 

 George Woodcocke. 



Cunningham, Growth of Engl. Industry and 

 Commerce, ii. 348. 



»» Baines, Hist, oj the Cotton Manufacture in Great 

 Britain (1835), p. 259, quoting the evidence of 

 Mr. James Thompson, a calico printer at Primrose 

 near Clitheroe before a Select Committee of the 

 House of Commons on Trade, etc., in 1833. 



II 



369 



47 



