728 
W O 
wool, or combing-wool, was more the peculiar produce of 
England than clothing-wools. The latter were grown in 
abundance, and of a superior quality, in Spain, Portugal, 
and France; but the combing-wools of England, on ac¬ 
count of the superior soundness of the staple or fibre, and the 
quantity supplied, gave a decided advantage to our manufac¬ 
turers of stuffs or worsted pieces. 
The persecution of the Protestants by the duke of Alva in 
the Netherlands drove multitudes of the manufacturers into 
England, where they were graciously received by Elizabeth, 
who gave them liberty to settle at Norwich, Colchester, 
Sandwich, Maidstone, and Southampton. These refugees 
contributed to extend our manufactures of worsted goods 
and light woollens, called bays and says ; they also intro¬ 
duced the manufacture of linens and silks, and it is supposed 
that they first taught the art of weaving on the stocking- 
frame. 
A great part of our woollen exports hitherto consisted of 
white undressed cloth; but in the following reign of James I. 
it was represented as bad policy to permit the exportation of 
cloth in this state, and thereby lose the profit on the dyeing 
and finishing. A letter exists addressed to king James on 
this subject, ascribed to Sir Walter Raleigh, but without suffi¬ 
cient evidence, as “ the most ancient manuscriptsof this letter 
in the libraries of the nobility ascribe it to John Keymer ” 
(Oldy’s Life of Sir W. Raleigh.) In this letter it is stated, 
“ that there have been eighty thousand undressed and undyed 
cloths exported yearly, by which the kingdom has been de¬ 
prived of four hundred thousand pounds for the last fifty-five 
years, which is nearly twenty millions that would have been 
gained by the labour of the workmen in that time, with the 
merchants’ gains for bringing in dyeing-wares, and return of 
cloths dressed and dyed, with other benefits to the realm.” 
The writer proceeds, in another part, to state, that there had 
also been exported in that time annually, of baizes and nor¬ 
thern and Devonshire kersies, in the white, fifty thousand 
cloths, counting three kersies to a cloth, whereby had been 
lost about five millions to the nation in labour, profit, &c. 
The author informs us, that the baizes so exported were dress¬ 
ed and dyed at Amsterdam, and shipped to Spain, Portugal, 
and other kingdoms, under the name of Flemish baize, set¬ 
ting their own seal upon them; “ so that we lose the very 
name of our home-bred commodities, and other countries get 
the reputation and profit thereof.” The author concludes 
with asserting, that the nation loses a million a year by the 
export of white cloths, which might be dressed and dyed as 
well at home. This letter has been often quoted as containing 
unanswerable reasons for confining the whole process of the 
cloth manufacture to our own country; but, like other mo¬ 
nopolists, the writer seems to forget that there are two par¬ 
ties in all mercantile transactions, and that manufactured 
goods must be sent in that state in which the purchaser is 
willing to receive them, unless it be proved that he cannot 
procure them elsewhere. Let us mark the result. Alderman 
Cockayne, and other London merchants, had sufficient in¬ 
fluence with the government to obtain the prohibition of the 
export of white cloths, and to secure a patent for dressing 
and dyeing of cloths. In consequence of which, the Dutch 
and Germans immediately prohibited the importation of 
dyed cloths from England, which gave so great a check to 
our export trade, that in the year 1616, the whole amount 
of cloths exported of every kind amounted only to sixty thou¬ 
sand, so that the export trade in woollens had fallen to 
less than one third of its former amount; and 
in the 
year 
1622, 
f. 
s. 
d. 
All our exports of every kind 1 
amounted only to - J 
2,320,436 
12 
10 
Whilst our imports were 
2,619,315 
0 
0 
Leaving a balance against us of 
298,878 
7 
2 
During the reigns of the Stuarts, 
the infamous policy they 
adopted struck not only at the liberty, but at the commer- 
O L. 
cial prosperity of the country. Archbishop Laud, imbued 
with the malignant zeal of a bigot, commenced his attacks 
on the descendants of the French Protestants, established as 
manufacturers of woollens in Norfolk and Suffolk, from 
which counties his persecuting fury drove some thousand 
families. Many of them settled in New England; but others 
went into Holland, where they were encouraged by the 
Dutch, who allowed them an exemption from taxes and 
rents for seven years. In return for this, the states were am¬ 
ply repaid by the introduction of manufactures, with which * 
they were before unacquainted. In the year 1622, king 
James issued a proclamation to prohibit the exportation of 
wool, fuller’s-earth, &c. In 1640 wool was again admitted 
to be exported on the payment of certain duties; and we are 
told, that in the same year Sir John Brownlowe, of Belton in 
Lincolnshire, sold three years’ wool at twenty-four shillings 
per tod to a baize-maker of Colchester. As it is reasonable to 
suppose that this was the long combing-wool of that country, 
it shews the high relative price of the article at that time. In 
1647, owing to the high price of wool, its exportation was 
again prohibited. 
During the civil wars, the manufactures and export trade 
of England declined, and the Dutch availed themselves of 
this to extend their own manufacture and export of woollens, 
particularly to Spain, from whence they brought fine Spa¬ 
nish wool. At this time it appears, that the woollen manu¬ 
factures in Poland and Silesia were rapidly increasing; and 
the English government received information that two hun¬ 
dred and twenty thousand cloths were made there annually, 
besides considerable quantities made at Dantzic, and in the 
vicinity. 
The duke of Brandenburg, it was also stated to our govern¬ 
ment, had ordered one hundred thousand ells of Silesia cloth 
at Koningsberg for his troops, which had been heretofore 
supplied with English cloth. The estimation in which our 
cloth had been held is said to have been lost by negligence 
in the manufacture, particularly in the spinning and weaving. 
The Dutch and Poles had a little before this time received a 
great number of Protestant manufacturers, who fled from the 
persecution of the duke of Alva in Brabant and Flanders. 
Here it may be proper to remark, that the English as a 
nation had little intercourse with other parts of the world, 
except through a few large trading companies: hence they 
were extremely ignorant respecting the state of foreign coun¬ 
tries, and supposed that the cloth trade had been confined to 
their own country for three hundred years; and they con¬ 
sidered the establishment of other manufacturers as a novelty 
and infringement of their just rights. With these views it 
was proposed to obtain a complete monopoly of all the cloth¬ 
ing-wools in Spain, in order to prevent the Dutch and other 
nations from rivalling our manufactures. This is the more 
extraordinary, as the English had not then learned, like the 
Dutch, to manufacture Spanish wool, without mixing it 
with that of their own country. It is needless to say, that 
the negociation of Sir William Godolphin for this selfish mo¬ 
nopoly of wool was not successful. During the whole reign 
of Elizabeth, when our woollen manufactures were in the 
highest slate of prosperity, wool and woolfels were permitted 
to be exported. In the reign of James I. and Charles L, 
when the trade was declining, proclamations were issued to 
prevent the exportation of wool, and also that of fuller’s- 
earth. During the commonwealth, an ordinance of parlia¬ 
ment was issued to prohibit the exportation of wool, and ful¬ 
ler’s-earth, on pain of forfeiture of the wool, and a penalty 
of 3s. per pound on every pound of fuller’s-earth. The first 
act of parliament which absolutely prohibited the exportation 
of wool by making it felony, and which could not be set a- 
side by a royal licence, is tbe 12th of Charles II., which was 
passed soon after the Restoration. 
It is deserving of notice, that, in the latter period of the 
Commonwealth, our trade is said to have greatly revived, 
but to have suffered a miserable depression almost imme¬ 
diately after the restoration of Charles II. In a letter of M. 
Downing of the Hague to the president of the council in 
London, 
