Page:Notes and Queries - Series 9 - Volume 2.djvu/158

 150

NOTES AND QUERIES. p* s. IL AUG. ao, i.

CHINTZ GOWNS.

(9 th S. ii. 89.)

IN 1700, by 11 & 12 Will. III. c. 10, it was enacted that from and after 29 Sept.,

1701, not only "all wrought silks of the

manufacture of Persia, China, or East India," but "all calicoes, painted, dyed, printed, or stained there, which are or shall be imported into this kingdom, shall not be worn or otherwise used within this king- dom," &c. This was the first blow against the wearing of chintzes or printed calicoes ; but it was not absolutely prohibitive, the avowed object of the statute being " the more effectual employing the poor, by encouraging the manufactures of this kingdom." It meant that ladies having worn out the Indian chintz apparel in their possession and use prior to 29 Sept., 1701, would have to be content with home-made stuffs for the next twenty-one years, as it befell in the sequel. The silk and woollen weavers had been hostile from the outset to the use of printed calicoes, whether of Oriental or domestic manufacture. During December, 1719, the Houses of Parliament were inundated with petitions against these stuffs; and on 23 Marcn, 1721, the royal assent was given to an Act (7 Geo. I., st. 1, c. 7) " to preserve and encourage the woollen and silk manufactures of this kingdom, and for more effectual employing the poor, by prohibiting the use and wear of all printed, painted, stained, or dyed callicoes in apparel, houshold stuff, furniture, and otherwise,"

after Christmas Day, 1722. In the preamble it is asserted that " the wearing and using " of the fabrics in question

" does manifestly tend to the great detriment of the woollen and silk manufactures of this kingdom, and if not effectually prevented, may be the utter ruin and destruction of the said manufactures and of many thousands of your majesty's subjects and their families whose livelihoods do intirely depend thereupon."

Calicoes dyed all blue were, for some occult reason, exempted by the final section from the provisions of the Act, the penalties for contravening which were 201. for the vendor and 5l. for the wearer (not the weaver, as by an awkward misprint it appears in McCul- loch's ' Commercial Dictionary,' 1869, p. 239) ; a fine of 201. was incurred also by any one who used the forbidden material for beds, chairs, &c. This "embargo" to use your correspondent's expressive term lasted for better than fourteen years, that is, until 24 March, 1736, when the royal assent was given to the Act 9 Geo. II., c. 4, which so far modified the amazing statute of 1721 as to permit, without "any penalty or forfeiture

whatsoever," "the wearing or using any

sort of stuff made of linen yarn and cotton wooll manufactured and printed or painted with any colour or colours within the king- dom of Great Britain, provided that the warp thereof be intirely linen yarn." Even so, ladies could not be said to wear calico prints, properly so called, the fabric being half linen and half cotton. Thirty-eight years had yet to elapse ere they might appear in the unadulterated stuff, for it was not until 1774 that the statute 14 Geo. III. c. 72 declared it lawful "to use or wear any new-manufac- tured stuffs, wholly made of cotton spun in Great Britain, when printed, stained, painted, or dyed with any colour or colours." It is curious to notice that by section 3 of this Act the said stuffs were deprived of the name calico, "which stands for foreign callicoes," the excise officer being specially directed to stamp such fabrics "British manufactory" instead of "Callico" as heretofore. I have not succeeded in ascertaining when it became again lawful to wear the printed calicoes of Oriental manufacture. F. ADAMS.

106A, Albany Road, Camberwell.

A CHURCH TRADITION (9 th S. i. 428 ii. 58). The reference to York and Lichfield cathe- drals as supporting the whimsical theory of a deviation of the line of a chancel from that of the nave being symbolic of the Atonement is not a happy one. I have before me three plans of York Minster : (1) Brown's ' Guide to York Minster' (much superior to the general run of such handbooks); (2) the 25-inch Ordnance Map of York, which, knowing the methods of the Ordnance Survey, I take to be infallible ; and (3) the exquisite map in Isbister & Co.'s " Cathedral Series," by the Very Rev. A. P. Pury Cust, D.D., Dean of York ; and all three show that no such deviation exists, but that nave and choir have precisely the same orientation.

Of Lichfield Cathedral I have the clear and beautifully drawn map in Bell's " Cathedral Series" by B. A. Clifton, showing a sligho deflection of the choir to the north, which by careful measurement with a vernier pro tractor is found to be only one degree of a circle, a deviation so minute that it is absurd to consider it as an intentional symbolic reference.

Mr. B. A. Clifton's account of the piece- meal rebuilding of the cathedral, by which it gradually took the place of the Norman cathedral first the choir, then the south transept, next the north, and last, at a later period, the nave makes it appear how likely a slight deviation was, under such