Page:VCH Berkshire 1.djvu/490

 A HISTORY OF BERKSHIRE and as free as the northern traders. 1 They showed also their willingness to learn from their competitors. In 1624 they agreed that two of their number should have 40^. allowed them ' towards their charges in travelling into the West countryes to view the manner of making their white cloth.' A certain thriftiness is also displayed on the part of the members of the corporation, inasmuch as there is an order that, if their representatives ' spend not so much, they shall restore the overplus upon accomptes.' a Various entries refer to the loans to clothiers provided by John Kendrick's will. Thus in 1626 James Winche receives 200, and Walter Bye, Richard Stamp, and William Blackeall 100 each. William Kendrick, the son of the benefactor, sold his house with all his goods belonging to his trade of clothing to the corporation. The evidence in a pretty quarrel about the milling and dressing of cloth in 1628 shows that Mr. Kendrick and Mr. Winche had mills at Burghfield for the milling and dressing of cloth. The munificent bequest of John Kendrick instead of promoting the trade of cloth-making in the town was eventually the cause of its failure. Though the money was devised for the sole use of the poorer class of manufacturers, yet the greater part of it was soon appropriated by the members of the corporation or dis- posed to their friends amongst the clothiers, who being enabled, from the capitals thus possessed, to undersell their competitors, occa- sioned much discontent. The inhabitants petitioned the Government in 14 Charles I., and showed that these fortunate and wealthy clothiers, aided by the Kendrick monies, ' were enabled to pay dearer rates for their stock than other poor clothiers can afford to give, and to sell their cloth at a lower rate] than the rest could afford to sell at, whereby they have got into their hands the greatest part of the trade, and all the rest of the clothiers, which is the greatest number, are for the most part of the poorer sort, and for whose benefit the legacy was principally intended, are much prejudiced and impoverished, and are likely by the unequal division of the said stock to be driven out of their trades. And by this means there are not so many clothes made in the town by near a third part, as were before the legacy was given, and those worser wrought than formerly they were wont to be, which turns to his majesty's great loss in his customs, and to the decay of trading in that flourishing town.' 3 The Archbishop 1 Rec. of Reading, ii. 159. 2 Ibid. ii. 188. 3 Man, Hist, of Reading, pp. 155, 156. of Canterbury reported to the king in his judgment and confirmed most of the con- tentions of the petitioners. He wrote : ' I find it confessed that the town makes fewer cloths now than it did before this great stock was given unto it. So the trade decays by the abuse of this money, and the king loseth his customs ; and this decay is near a third part. I conceive this decay comes by unequal divisions of this great stock, by which means they which have a greater portion of it out- buy all the younger and poorer clothiers, for whose benefit principally this stock was given, 4 who are, contrary to the donor's intent, almost undone by it.' The report makes sundry suggestions for the better manage- ment of the fund, which were ordered by the court, but only partially carried into effect. The clamour of the poor spinners and carders continued. Strict orders were issued that all weaving, burling, shearing and dress- ing should be given to the poor weavers, burlers and workfolk in the town, and not sent into the country under a penalty of IOJ. Petitions were presented to the king by clothiers from different counties in 1630 for liberty of trade, the industry being languishing, and Richard Stampe took charge of that from Reading. When the Civil War broke out and Sir Arthur Aston was Governor of the town in 1643, ' he declayred his Majesty's good intentions to the clothiers of Reading, and granted them free liberty to trade in London without the let or hindrance of his Majesty or any of his armies.' 5 But such freedom of trade came too late when the trade itself was gone. Kendrick's gift was the chief cause of its decline. The Civil War killed it, and Reading ceased to be one of the chief manufacturing centres in the west of Eng- land. At Wallingford the clothing trade was carried on from early times. Henry de Mont- fort in the thirteenth century was a weaver who exchanged the Hospital of St. John, a tenement situate in the parish of St. Peter, for a common messuage in the corn-market. Cloth was evidently sold in the market in 1233, as one burgess made a complaint that he was accused of stealing the same. 8 Clothiers appear on the list of traders, or companies representing traders, as early as 1227, together with weavers and fullers, and in 1265 we find mention of the arconarii or woolcombers. Ibid. p. 157. B Rec. of Reading, iv. 75. Hist. MSS. Com. Rep. vi., App. p. 573. 392