Weavers and Clothiers in 17th and 18th Century Box
Jonathan Parkhouse Decemner 2025
Jonathan Parkhouse Decemner 2025
Depiction of Weaving in Late Medieval period (unknown attribution)
The pre-1800 probate records for Box and Ditteridge provide additional evidence for the wool trade in Box’s early modern economy, supplementing the article Cloth Trade in Box. The data presented here is part of a much larger study of the material culture of early modern Box being undertaken by the present author, based on the surviving wills and inventories for the parishes of Box and Ditteridge before AD 1800.
The Cloth Trade in Wiltshire
The economic and social position of the weavers varied considerably. At the top end of the scale the distinction between clothiers and weavers is unclear in all but name, but at the lower end the weavers led a precarious existence. The expansion of the Wiltshire woollen industry during the reign of Elizabeth had led to a lowering of the weavers’ standard of living; whilst prices and output had risen, wages had not, and when the Thirty Years war broke out in 1618 a significant foreign market became inaccessible. A document presented to the Privy Council in 1620 indicated that large numbers of those involved in the Wiltshire cloth industry were out of work, whilst there were riots by unemployed textile workers in 1621-22; coupled with several years of corn shortage in the early seventeenth century there must have been considerable distress.[1] The cloth business continued to be fairly volatile throughout the period under review; it is small wonder that numerous weavers ended up in the workhouse. Those who became destitute are unlikely to figure in the probate records and it is quite possible that weavers are under-represented in this strand of documentary evidence,[2] but we have no reason to assume that Box was immune from the economic fortunes of the rest of the Wiltshire textile industry. Nevertheless, some weavers did well for themselves; the one wealthy weaver in our Box records, William Butler, was clearly engaged in other enterprises including cheese production on what seems to have been a commercial scale. Moreover, he appears to have been able to flourish at a time that was particularly difficult for those engaged in the cloth business.
After weaving, clothiers took the cloths from the weavers to the fulling mill to clean the fabric of the oils used in preparing the yarns and thicken the fabric by pounding under a water-powered heavy wooden hammer. The cloths were scoured by immersion in Fuller’s earth, which occurs naturally locally beneath the Great Oolite beds, and urine, and then pounded. Cloth was normally fulled twice, being spread upon racks in between scourings for the removal of knots or defects, a process known as burling. We know that Box Mill was used for fulling in the nineteenth century, but the will of William Pinchin (d. 1688) records the bequest of three fulling racks to his son, also William, which indicates that Box Mill, owned by the Pinchin family, was used for fulling in the later seventeenth century.[3] Fulling not only cleaned the cloth, but forced the individual fibres to shrink and interlock, providing the cloth with cohesion and strength. Heavy woollen cloth treated this way was virtually indestructible and extremely hard-wearing. After fulling, the cloths were tautly stretched by hooks on a tentering frame to remove wrinkles and restore some of the surface area lost during fulling. The cloth was then finished by ‘napping’, or raising, the loose fibres, often with teazels, which were then shorn with long sharp shears. By this stage in the process the weave had been more or less obliterated, and the fabric had acquired a very soft texture.
Nearer to the bottom of the production chain were the spinners, an 'unorganised mass of sweated labour', whose meagre wages, according to John Aubrey, writing in the latter half of the seventeenth century, just about kept them alive and ‘are trained up as nurseries of sedition and rebellion’.[4] Spinning converted wool, once it had been sorted and prepared by combing or carding to remove dirt and knots, into yarn; there were two methods, both depicted amongst the charming illustrations in the fourteenth century Luttrell psalter.[5] The older method, in use since prehistory, used a wooden spindle with a weight (a spindle whorl) on the bottom; threads were drawn out from the wool which was wrapped around a distaff held under the left arm, and twisted by the right hand, with the spindle gradually falling to the ground with the spun thread, which could then be wound around the spindle. The distaff and spindle could be carried around the home or even taken outdoors; the lady shown in the Luttrell psalter has taken hers outside to feed the chickens (and an improbably large hen).
Record of Cloth Trade in Box
Many probate records, but by no means all, give the occupation or status of the deceased, and provide a useful, if broad-brush, overview of economic activity within a particular area. The records need to be used with caution, since only a tiny proportion of parishioners appear in the probate records and the poorer members of the community were far less visible than the better off. However, some trends may be discerned.
Out of over 250 individuals for whom we have wills and/or inventories prior to the year 1800, there are eight who identify their occupation as being associated with the cloth industry. (If we look solely at the inventories, there are seven individuals, or 6.5% of the whole corpus, with cloth-related occupations; this compares with a much higher percentage in the recently published probate inventory corpus for Bradford-on-Avon of 29.5%).[6]
The economic and social position of the weavers varied considerably. At the top end of the scale the distinction between clothiers and weavers is unclear in all but name, but at the lower end the weavers led a precarious existence. The expansion of the Wiltshire woollen industry during the reign of Elizabeth had led to a lowering of the weavers’ standard of living; whilst prices and output had risen, wages had not, and when the Thirty Years war broke out in 1618 a significant foreign market became inaccessible. A document presented to the Privy Council in 1620 indicated that large numbers of those involved in the Wiltshire cloth industry were out of work, whilst there were riots by unemployed textile workers in 1621-22; coupled with several years of corn shortage in the early seventeenth century there must have been considerable distress.[1] The cloth business continued to be fairly volatile throughout the period under review; it is small wonder that numerous weavers ended up in the workhouse. Those who became destitute are unlikely to figure in the probate records and it is quite possible that weavers are under-represented in this strand of documentary evidence,[2] but we have no reason to assume that Box was immune from the economic fortunes of the rest of the Wiltshire textile industry. Nevertheless, some weavers did well for themselves; the one wealthy weaver in our Box records, William Butler, was clearly engaged in other enterprises including cheese production on what seems to have been a commercial scale. Moreover, he appears to have been able to flourish at a time that was particularly difficult for those engaged in the cloth business.
After weaving, clothiers took the cloths from the weavers to the fulling mill to clean the fabric of the oils used in preparing the yarns and thicken the fabric by pounding under a water-powered heavy wooden hammer. The cloths were scoured by immersion in Fuller’s earth, which occurs naturally locally beneath the Great Oolite beds, and urine, and then pounded. Cloth was normally fulled twice, being spread upon racks in between scourings for the removal of knots or defects, a process known as burling. We know that Box Mill was used for fulling in the nineteenth century, but the will of William Pinchin (d. 1688) records the bequest of three fulling racks to his son, also William, which indicates that Box Mill, owned by the Pinchin family, was used for fulling in the later seventeenth century.[3] Fulling not only cleaned the cloth, but forced the individual fibres to shrink and interlock, providing the cloth with cohesion and strength. Heavy woollen cloth treated this way was virtually indestructible and extremely hard-wearing. After fulling, the cloths were tautly stretched by hooks on a tentering frame to remove wrinkles and restore some of the surface area lost during fulling. The cloth was then finished by ‘napping’, or raising, the loose fibres, often with teazels, which were then shorn with long sharp shears. By this stage in the process the weave had been more or less obliterated, and the fabric had acquired a very soft texture.
Nearer to the bottom of the production chain were the spinners, an 'unorganised mass of sweated labour', whose meagre wages, according to John Aubrey, writing in the latter half of the seventeenth century, just about kept them alive and ‘are trained up as nurseries of sedition and rebellion’.[4] Spinning converted wool, once it had been sorted and prepared by combing or carding to remove dirt and knots, into yarn; there were two methods, both depicted amongst the charming illustrations in the fourteenth century Luttrell psalter.[5] The older method, in use since prehistory, used a wooden spindle with a weight (a spindle whorl) on the bottom; threads were drawn out from the wool which was wrapped around a distaff held under the left arm, and twisted by the right hand, with the spindle gradually falling to the ground with the spun thread, which could then be wound around the spindle. The distaff and spindle could be carried around the home or even taken outdoors; the lady shown in the Luttrell psalter has taken hers outside to feed the chickens (and an improbably large hen).
Record of Cloth Trade in Box
Many probate records, but by no means all, give the occupation or status of the deceased, and provide a useful, if broad-brush, overview of economic activity within a particular area. The records need to be used with caution, since only a tiny proportion of parishioners appear in the probate records and the poorer members of the community were far less visible than the better off. However, some trends may be discerned.
Out of over 250 individuals for whom we have wills and/or inventories prior to the year 1800, there are eight who identify their occupation as being associated with the cloth industry. (If we look solely at the inventories, there are seven individuals, or 6.5% of the whole corpus, with cloth-related occupations; this compares with a much higher percentage in the recently published probate inventory corpus for Bradford-on-Avon of 29.5%).[6]
Weavers in Box
John Cox Senior, of East Fogham, a weaver, died in 1613 and left goods with an inventory value of £6.0s.8d, although the value of cash bequests in his will was £7.6s.[7] His appraisers record possessions in two rooms (the hall and a chamber). There are no goods associated with cloth in his inventory, or for that matter anything directly connected with agriculture, so he may well have passed on all his work equipment to his son and retired or been too ill to continue working. His son, also John Cox, and also describing himself as a weaver, died in 1624, and left goods with an inventory value of £38.3s.8d, including a spinning turn with reel, a loom, a press (cupboard) of wool, a scale and weights, a piece of medley cloth and a piece of white cloth.[8] His inventory tells us that the dwelling included a workshop, and an upper chamber, neither of which is noted in the inventory of John Cox senior, which again suggests that John Cox senior had already passed the business and the house on to his son some time before he died and was living in one chamber of the dwelling with shared use of the main hall.
John Butlar of Togwell/Toghill, weaver, died in 1618 and left goods with an inventory value of £4.12s.1d, all apparently in one room (the hall); there were no goods associated with the cloth trade.[9]
William Butler of Middlehill, weaver, died in 1628 and left goods valued at £95.2s.4d.[10] His dwelling consisted of at least nine rooms and included a [work]shop. He had a spinning turn and two looms, along with various farm animals and several acres of arable lands, 'suls' [ploughs], 12 hundredweight of cheese and dairying equipment.
John Cox Senior, of East Fogham, a weaver, died in 1613 and left goods with an inventory value of £6.0s.8d, although the value of cash bequests in his will was £7.6s.[7] His appraisers record possessions in two rooms (the hall and a chamber). There are no goods associated with cloth in his inventory, or for that matter anything directly connected with agriculture, so he may well have passed on all his work equipment to his son and retired or been too ill to continue working. His son, also John Cox, and also describing himself as a weaver, died in 1624, and left goods with an inventory value of £38.3s.8d, including a spinning turn with reel, a loom, a press (cupboard) of wool, a scale and weights, a piece of medley cloth and a piece of white cloth.[8] His inventory tells us that the dwelling included a workshop, and an upper chamber, neither of which is noted in the inventory of John Cox senior, which again suggests that John Cox senior had already passed the business and the house on to his son some time before he died and was living in one chamber of the dwelling with shared use of the main hall.
John Butlar of Togwell/Toghill, weaver, died in 1618 and left goods with an inventory value of £4.12s.1d, all apparently in one room (the hall); there were no goods associated with the cloth trade.[9]
William Butler of Middlehill, weaver, died in 1628 and left goods valued at £95.2s.4d.[10] His dwelling consisted of at least nine rooms and included a [work]shop. He had a spinning turn and two looms, along with various farm animals and several acres of arable lands, 'suls' [ploughs], 12 hundredweight of cheese and dairying equipment.
|
Local Clothiers Nehemiah Bolwell of Hulbert (died 1675) described himself as a clothier, although he also owned livestock and arable, some in Box and some in Ditteridge.[11] He was wealthy by Box standards, the inventory value of his goods being £274.8s.8d, and the value of cash bequests in his will £120.[12] His inventory has been damaged along one edge by vermin and some interpolation of missing words and letters is necessary. Seven rooms in his dwelling are named including a warpin [ie weaving] loft. His weaving loft contained a number of items to do with the cloth trade: threescore [?= 60 lbs] Spanish woole & 40 lbs Meddlee [Medley, ie multicoloured] yarne, valued together at £14, together with one warpin barr & Sceven three [?tu]bbs boxes one beating hurdle [s]cales & waijts Way Beam three wooli bascutts one beading hurdle twoe [?qui]llinge turnes one Spinning turne [?culling] boards & one oyle kittle [oil kettle], together worth £1.4s.6d. The inventory also notes seven cloths 'in the factors hands' valued at £90 and cloth worth £40 'in the workmens' hands'. |
Part of Nehemiah Bolwell’s Inventory (TNA PROB 4/22064) The inventory has been tightly rolled, with damage from vermin along the left hand side
|
That Bolwell had a quantity of Spanish wool should be no surprise. Spanish merino wool was gaining a reputation for its quality throughout Europe from the later Middle Ages onwards and by the mid-sixteenth century was imported into England in significant quantities, initially for felt making and haberdashery, and by the 1620s for broadcloth manufacture. By this time merino wools had probably surpassed the finest English wools in terms of quality. Spanish cloth was originally made from dyed wool imported from Spain, and then from Spanish wool dyed in England. By the 1630s the manufacture of English broadcloth from Spanish wool was well-established in an area running along the Somerset-Wiltshire border, which had previously been devoted to the manufacture of fine white broadcloth. At the same time the varieties of English wool, and the textiles derived from them, was becoming more diverse.[13]
The equipment noted in Bolwell’s inventory give us some idea of the cloth-making process. The warping bar was a frame used to prepare the warp for weaving. The beating hurdle was a hurdle or frame upon which wool was placed and beaten with willow rods to remove grit and knots after cleaning or dyeing. A quilling or quilting turn was used to make pleats (the document has been damaged here but this seems to be the most likely reading). The oil kettle would have been a handled container (kettle having a wider range of meanings in the seventeenth century than it does now) for olive oil, which was used to replace the natural oils lost when the wool was scoured (cleaned) in water and urine before being spread on the beating hurdle; the oil would most likely have been imported from Spain. Scouring was more usually undertaken on short staple wools such as those used for broadcloth and kerseys; longer staple wools, used for worsteds and serge, were usually unscoured,[14] so this may give us a hint as to the sort of cloth which Bolwell was producing. About 8 to 10 lbs of oil were used for about 60-70 lbs of wool in each cloth.[15] The baskets and other containers would have been used to sort wool along with the culling (i.e. sorting[16]) board, if our interpolation is correct.
What is noticeable by its absence is an actual loom, which may indicate that Bolwell was no longer weaving himself.
The equipment noted in Bolwell’s inventory give us some idea of the cloth-making process. The warping bar was a frame used to prepare the warp for weaving. The beating hurdle was a hurdle or frame upon which wool was placed and beaten with willow rods to remove grit and knots after cleaning or dyeing. A quilling or quilting turn was used to make pleats (the document has been damaged here but this seems to be the most likely reading). The oil kettle would have been a handled container (kettle having a wider range of meanings in the seventeenth century than it does now) for olive oil, which was used to replace the natural oils lost when the wool was scoured (cleaned) in water and urine before being spread on the beating hurdle; the oil would most likely have been imported from Spain. Scouring was more usually undertaken on short staple wools such as those used for broadcloth and kerseys; longer staple wools, used for worsteds and serge, were usually unscoured,[14] so this may give us a hint as to the sort of cloth which Bolwell was producing. About 8 to 10 lbs of oil were used for about 60-70 lbs of wool in each cloth.[15] The baskets and other containers would have been used to sort wool along with the culling (i.e. sorting[16]) board, if our interpolation is correct.
What is noticeable by its absence is an actual loom, which may indicate that Bolwell was no longer weaving himself.
William Gibbon of Rudlow, another clothier, died c.1697. Only his inventory survives, and it is so badly faded that most of it is now illegible.[17] It describes the contents of at least five rooms, which included a clock and a looking glass in his parlour, suggesting that he was relatively wealthy, or at least sufficiently wealthy to buy a wider range of consumer goods than most other inhabitants of Box at this time.
Finally, we have Samuel Pinchin the elder, who describes himself as a clothier. His will, dated 1750, includes cash bequests totalling £100.10s.0d and a mortgage debt of £200.[18] Unfortunately, there is no inventory (almost all the Box inventories pre-date 1740), so we have no description of any goods relating to his occupation, but the will indicates a measure of wealth; indeed the well-to-do Pinchins were influential in Box over a long period of time.
The clothiers, for which we have information here in respect of three individuals, were the people who organised the cloth industry, putting a lot of the work out to homeworkers (hence the "cloth in the workmens hands" in Nehemiah Bolwell's inventory) and in some cases renting looms, or providing looms on their premises, although of our three clothiers only Bolwell’s activities are evidenced by a more or less complete inventory and as we have seen he apparently had no loom. Clothiers were generally wealthy, although none of the Box clothiers could compare remotely with really wealthy individuals such as William Stumpe of Malmesbury in the C16th, or the Methuens of Bradford on Avon. Economic historians often describe them as early capitalists, controlling the means of production. The factors, mentioned in Bolwell’s inventory, acted as intermediaries between clothiers and the cloth market in London at Blackwell Hall where the packs of cloths from the country producers were sold on to wholesale merchants, often for export. Whilst Blackwell Hall was the pre-eminent market, closely controlled by the Corporation in London, informal market places also existed, particularly at inns (such as that The George at Norton St Philip,[19] illustrated below), which were nodal points in the communications network and provided safe overnight storage for travellers as well as the opportunity to do business.
Finally, we have Samuel Pinchin the elder, who describes himself as a clothier. His will, dated 1750, includes cash bequests totalling £100.10s.0d and a mortgage debt of £200.[18] Unfortunately, there is no inventory (almost all the Box inventories pre-date 1740), so we have no description of any goods relating to his occupation, but the will indicates a measure of wealth; indeed the well-to-do Pinchins were influential in Box over a long period of time.
The clothiers, for which we have information here in respect of three individuals, were the people who organised the cloth industry, putting a lot of the work out to homeworkers (hence the "cloth in the workmens hands" in Nehemiah Bolwell's inventory) and in some cases renting looms, or providing looms on their premises, although of our three clothiers only Bolwell’s activities are evidenced by a more or less complete inventory and as we have seen he apparently had no loom. Clothiers were generally wealthy, although none of the Box clothiers could compare remotely with really wealthy individuals such as William Stumpe of Malmesbury in the C16th, or the Methuens of Bradford on Avon. Economic historians often describe them as early capitalists, controlling the means of production. The factors, mentioned in Bolwell’s inventory, acted as intermediaries between clothiers and the cloth market in London at Blackwell Hall where the packs of cloths from the country producers were sold on to wholesale merchants, often for export. Whilst Blackwell Hall was the pre-eminent market, closely controlled by the Corporation in London, informal market places also existed, particularly at inns (such as that The George at Norton St Philip,[19] illustrated below), which were nodal points in the communications network and provided safe overnight storage for travellers as well as the opportunity to do business.
The George Inn, Norton St Philip, Somerset. Parts of the fabric date to the late fourteenth century. The inn was closely connected with the cloth trade, serving as a trading place outside the usual times of the adjacent marketplace and fairground. The fairs specialised in wool, cloth and sheep (photo courtesy Jonathan Parkhouse)
Box Wool Broker
Richard Suthery, who died c.1717 described himself as a woolbreaker.[20] The value of his inventoried estate was £198.3s, including debts both good and bad of £97, and his will included cash bequests of £141.10s. His dwelling consisted of at least four rooms, together with a stable. Amongst his goods were five packs of wool (valued at £40), two packs of fine yarn (£20) and 2 packs of coarse yarn (£12). A pack of wool would have weighed 240 lbs. His inventory was appraised by Thomas Bush of Bradford, clothier, Gabriel Cox, also of Bradford, a serge dresser and Joseph Baldwin, a yeoman of Box.
The "woolbreaker" Richard Suthery would have been a wool broker or 'brogger' buying up the clipped wool from farms and selling it on to the clothiers. His stock of wool and yarn represents around 36% of his estate, and his appraisers, a local yeoman and two individuals involved in the woollen industry in Bradford upon Avon, are likely to reflect part of his network of business contacts.
Richard Suthery, who died c.1717 described himself as a woolbreaker.[20] The value of his inventoried estate was £198.3s, including debts both good and bad of £97, and his will included cash bequests of £141.10s. His dwelling consisted of at least four rooms, together with a stable. Amongst his goods were five packs of wool (valued at £40), two packs of fine yarn (£20) and 2 packs of coarse yarn (£12). A pack of wool would have weighed 240 lbs. His inventory was appraised by Thomas Bush of Bradford, clothier, Gabriel Cox, also of Bradford, a serge dresser and Joseph Baldwin, a yeoman of Box.
The "woolbreaker" Richard Suthery would have been a wool broker or 'brogger' buying up the clipped wool from farms and selling it on to the clothiers. His stock of wool and yarn represents around 36% of his estate, and his appraisers, a local yeoman and two individuals involved in the woollen industry in Bradford upon Avon, are likely to reflect part of his network of business contacts.
A multi-tasking lady in the fourteenth century. Her distaff with the wool wrapped around it is under her left arm; the spindle is hanging from the distaff
Local Wool Spinning
By the period under review here, hand spinning seems to have been supplanted by the other method, which seems to have been introduced by the thirteenth century. This involved a wheel known as a ‘turn’, by which a spindle attached to the wheel pulled out the thread on to a bobbin. Although the wheel was turned by hand the process was much faster than spinning by hand, even though the yarn was liable to break as the spinner often had to stop to wind on the finished yarn. By the fifteenth century an improved version powered by a treadle was introduced. Spinners had to produce two types of yarn; the warp, closely spun and twisted for strength, which would be stretched lengthways and measured to the length of the cloth to be woven using a warping frame (the warpin barr in Nehemiah Bolwell’s weaving loft), and the weft, more loosely spun as it was pounded together during the fulling process.
By the period under review here, hand spinning seems to have been supplanted by the other method, which seems to have been introduced by the thirteenth century. This involved a wheel known as a ‘turn’, by which a spindle attached to the wheel pulled out the thread on to a bobbin. Although the wheel was turned by hand the process was much faster than spinning by hand, even though the yarn was liable to break as the spinner often had to stop to wind on the finished yarn. By the fifteenth century an improved version powered by a treadle was introduced. Spinners had to produce two types of yarn; the warp, closely spun and twisted for strength, which would be stretched lengthways and measured to the length of the cloth to be woven using a warping frame (the warpin barr in Nehemiah Bolwell’s weaving loft), and the weft, more loosely spun as it was pounded together during the fulling process.
Operating a spinning turn. The lady on the left is using a small stick in her right hand to turn the wheel and pulling the thread with her left hand. The lady on the right is carding the wool prior to spinning, separating the strands using a carding board with iron hooks on one side. Originally carding was done with teasel heads.
No-one is identified as a spinner in the Box probate records, either because the spinners were too poor to appear in the probate records, or because spinning was often undertaken by women, particularly unmarried women (ie spinsters). Although spinning turns are listed in several male inventories, it did not mean that spinning had been undertaken by the deceased, as inventories normally listed the goods of an entire household, other than a widow’s bona paraphernalia, that is to say her apparel, jewels, and a limited range of personal possessions. The mention of a spinning turn merely demonstrates that someone in the household, perhaps a wife, daughter or servant, was spinning some of the time.
No-one is identified as a spinner in the Box probate records, either because the spinners were too poor to appear in the probate records, or because spinning was often undertaken by women, particularly unmarried women (ie spinsters). Although spinning turns are listed in several male inventories, it did not mean that spinning had been undertaken by the deceased, as inventories normally listed the goods of an entire household, other than a widow’s bona paraphernalia, that is to say her apparel, jewels, and a limited range of personal possessions. The mention of a spinning turn merely demonstrates that someone in the household, perhaps a wife, daughter or servant, was spinning some of the time.
Dyeing Wool
Another occupation within the woollen industry which is unrepresented in the Box probate records is dyeing. Dyeing was done either after spinning (hence the expression ‘dyed in the wool’) or ‘in the piece’ once the cloth had been woven and fulled. In hard-water areas it was difficult to get evenly coloured cloth by dyeing in the piece and dyeing in the wool seems to have been the norm in Wiltshire, but bright colours could only be achieved by dyeing in the piece and this was quite often left to dyers in London.[21]
Home Workers
Few of the individuals identified here need have depended solely upon wool and cloth for their income. The probate records give us a glimpse of domestic economies in which weaving and textile manufacture were just one component, with farming and dairying, as well as quarrying, being significant additional sources of income. Those who had more than one income stream were better placed to weather economic downturns. There were a number of people in Box who were not described as weavers or clothiers but who nevertheless supplemented their income with outwork, especially spinning, as amongst the probate records are several individuals who are identified as being engaged in some other occupation, or none at all, who had goods or stock associated with cloth manufacture.[22]
Another occupation within the woollen industry which is unrepresented in the Box probate records is dyeing. Dyeing was done either after spinning (hence the expression ‘dyed in the wool’) or ‘in the piece’ once the cloth had been woven and fulled. In hard-water areas it was difficult to get evenly coloured cloth by dyeing in the piece and dyeing in the wool seems to have been the norm in Wiltshire, but bright colours could only be achieved by dyeing in the piece and this was quite often left to dyers in London.[21]
Home Workers
Few of the individuals identified here need have depended solely upon wool and cloth for their income. The probate records give us a glimpse of domestic economies in which weaving and textile manufacture were just one component, with farming and dairying, as well as quarrying, being significant additional sources of income. Those who had more than one income stream were better placed to weather economic downturns. There were a number of people in Box who were not described as weavers or clothiers but who nevertheless supplemented their income with outwork, especially spinning, as amongst the probate records are several individuals who are identified as being engaged in some other occupation, or none at all, who had goods or stock associated with cloth manufacture.[22]
Value |
||
John King, freemason |
1606 |
1 spinning turn |
Ralph Cowley of Wadswick |
1627 |
2 spinning turns |
Thomas Broad of Wadswick, yeoman |
1633 |
40 lbs yarn. Broad was one of the appraisers of Ralph Cowley’s inventory |
John Head, freemason of Middlehill |
1637 |
1 spinning turn, 8 lbs wool |
Henry Butler of Rudloe |
1637 |
1 loom, 16 lbs wool and yarn. In his will he leaves to his son William ' a loom, with all harness and tacklings' |
William Curtis of Ashley, yeoman |
1640 |
1 spinning turn |
Anne Head, widow of Middlehill |
1661 |
2 spinning turns |
Walter Duffine of Ditteridge, husbandman |
1668 |
2 spinning turns and one reel |
Henry Whatley |
1676 |
'wool and cloth in the closet'. Whatley was one of the appraisers of Nehemiah Bolwell’s inventory |
William Pinchen the elder of Box, yeoman |
1688 |
Three fulling racks (in the possession of his son, also William) |
Anthony Gibbons, Inn holder of Wadswick |
1689 |
2 spinning turns |
Jane West, widow, of Wadswick |
1699 |
2 spinning turns |
Conclusion
The overall impression provided by these records, and the evidence cited in Cloth Trade in Box, is that the cloth industry was certainly a significant component of the Box economy, especially during the C17th, but was not nearly as important as it was in the urban centres. Box and Ditteridge parishes lay within the wool and cloth-producing area of Wiltshire, and we should not be surprised that some of its inhabitants were engaged in what was an extremely important endeavour on the national scale, but the cloth industry does not appear to have been quite as important in the two parishes during the early modern period as agriculture and quarrying.
The overall impression provided by these records, and the evidence cited in Cloth Trade in Box, is that the cloth industry was certainly a significant component of the Box economy, especially during the C17th, but was not nearly as important as it was in the urban centres. Box and Ditteridge parishes lay within the wool and cloth-producing area of Wiltshire, and we should not be surprised that some of its inhabitants were engaged in what was an extremely important endeavour on the national scale, but the cloth industry does not appear to have been quite as important in the two parishes during the early modern period as agriculture and quarrying.
References
[1] Government regulation of the cloth industry and the economic vicissitudes of the period under review are complex and beyond the scope of this note. See Ramsay GD (1965) The Wiltshire Woollen Industry in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries Cass and co., London, esp. pp 65-84
[2] Another broadcloth weaver who appears in the probate records is Edward Lynt or Lent, who is named in the 1641 administration bond of William Jeffrey senior, but there is no information about Edward’s wealth or possessions: Wiltshire and Swindon History Centre (W&SHC) P3/IJ/76
[3] W&SHC: P3/P/487C
[4] Britton J (1847) (ed.) The Natural History of Wiltshire by John Aubrey, Wiltshire Topographical Society, London, p.110
[5] British Library Add MS 42130; f.166 verso; f.193
[6] Figures for Bradford derived from Slocombe I (2021) Bradford-on-Avon Probate Inventories 1550-1700 Bradford on Avon Museum Monograph 4, Bradford-on-Avon Museum and Ex Libris Press. The actual percentage figure is likely to be higher, since Slocombe’s study only covers probate records dealt with by the Diocese of Sarum (Salisbury), now held by the Wiltshire and Swindon History centre. Only a single Bradford individual describing himself as a clothier appears in these records; wealthy individuals such as clothiers were more likely to have their wills proved in the Prerogative Court of Canterbury, whose records are contained in the National Archives at Kew
[7] W&SHC: P3/C/70
[8] W&SHC: P3/C/131
[9] W&SHC: P/B/169
[10] W&SHC: P/B/298
[11] Hulbert Farm, on the road to Alcombe from Middlehill, is in Box Parish, but close to some of the outlying parts of Ditteridge parish. See http://www.boxpeopleandplaces.co.uk/ditteridge-parish.html
[12] The National Archives (TNA) PROB 11/348/298 (will); PROB 4/22064 (inventory)
[13] Bowden PJ (1956) ‘Wool Supply and the Woollen Industry’ Economic History Review 9.1, pp 44-58 https://doi.org/10.2307/2591530 ; Munro J (2005) ‘Spanish Merino Wools and the Nouvelles Draperies: an Industrial Transformation in the Late Medieval Low Countries’ Economic History Review 58.3, pp431-484
[14] Lee JS (2018) The Medieval Clothier Boydell, Woodbridge, p45. Although primarily dealing with the period immediately before that with which this note is concerned, pp 44-65 provide a useful account of the mechanics of cloth production.
[15] Brett CJ (2004) ‘Thomas Kytson and Wiltshire Clothmen 1529-1539’ Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Magazine 97, p49
[16] ‘… the Parter, that doth neatly cull/ The finer from the coarser sort of wool’ Watts R (1641) The Young Man’s Looking Glass quoted in Lee op cit p 44
[17] TNA: PROB 4/16075
[18] W&SHC: P/3/P/906
[19] Lee op cit, pp105-107
[20] W&SHC: P3/S/1021
[21] Mann J de L (1987) The Clothmaking Industry in the West of England from 1640 to 1880 Alan Sutton, Gloucester, pp9-10
[22] W&SHC : P1/K/8 (King); P3/C/153 (Cowley); P3/B/350 (Broad); P3/H/295 (J. Head); P3/B/393 (Butler); P3/C/268 (Curtis); P1/H/332 (A. Head); P3/D/133 (Duffine); P3/W/389 (Whatley); P3/P/487C (Pinchen); P3/G/339 (Gibbons); P1/W/1698 (West)
[1] Government regulation of the cloth industry and the economic vicissitudes of the period under review are complex and beyond the scope of this note. See Ramsay GD (1965) The Wiltshire Woollen Industry in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries Cass and co., London, esp. pp 65-84
[2] Another broadcloth weaver who appears in the probate records is Edward Lynt or Lent, who is named in the 1641 administration bond of William Jeffrey senior, but there is no information about Edward’s wealth or possessions: Wiltshire and Swindon History Centre (W&SHC) P3/IJ/76
[3] W&SHC: P3/P/487C
[4] Britton J (1847) (ed.) The Natural History of Wiltshire by John Aubrey, Wiltshire Topographical Society, London, p.110
[5] British Library Add MS 42130; f.166 verso; f.193
[6] Figures for Bradford derived from Slocombe I (2021) Bradford-on-Avon Probate Inventories 1550-1700 Bradford on Avon Museum Monograph 4, Bradford-on-Avon Museum and Ex Libris Press. The actual percentage figure is likely to be higher, since Slocombe’s study only covers probate records dealt with by the Diocese of Sarum (Salisbury), now held by the Wiltshire and Swindon History centre. Only a single Bradford individual describing himself as a clothier appears in these records; wealthy individuals such as clothiers were more likely to have their wills proved in the Prerogative Court of Canterbury, whose records are contained in the National Archives at Kew
[7] W&SHC: P3/C/70
[8] W&SHC: P3/C/131
[9] W&SHC: P/B/169
[10] W&SHC: P/B/298
[11] Hulbert Farm, on the road to Alcombe from Middlehill, is in Box Parish, but close to some of the outlying parts of Ditteridge parish. See http://www.boxpeopleandplaces.co.uk/ditteridge-parish.html
[12] The National Archives (TNA) PROB 11/348/298 (will); PROB 4/22064 (inventory)
[13] Bowden PJ (1956) ‘Wool Supply and the Woollen Industry’ Economic History Review 9.1, pp 44-58 https://doi.org/10.2307/2591530 ; Munro J (2005) ‘Spanish Merino Wools and the Nouvelles Draperies: an Industrial Transformation in the Late Medieval Low Countries’ Economic History Review 58.3, pp431-484
[14] Lee JS (2018) The Medieval Clothier Boydell, Woodbridge, p45. Although primarily dealing with the period immediately before that with which this note is concerned, pp 44-65 provide a useful account of the mechanics of cloth production.
[15] Brett CJ (2004) ‘Thomas Kytson and Wiltshire Clothmen 1529-1539’ Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Magazine 97, p49
[16] ‘… the Parter, that doth neatly cull/ The finer from the coarser sort of wool’ Watts R (1641) The Young Man’s Looking Glass quoted in Lee op cit p 44
[17] TNA: PROB 4/16075
[18] W&SHC: P/3/P/906
[19] Lee op cit, pp105-107
[20] W&SHC: P3/S/1021
[21] Mann J de L (1987) The Clothmaking Industry in the West of England from 1640 to 1880 Alan Sutton, Gloucester, pp9-10
[22] W&SHC : P1/K/8 (King); P3/C/153 (Cowley); P3/B/350 (Broad); P3/H/295 (J. Head); P3/B/393 (Butler); P3/C/268 (Curtis); P1/H/332 (A. Head); P3/D/133 (Duffine); P3/W/389 (Whatley); P3/P/487C (Pinchen); P3/G/339 (Gibbons); P1/W/1698 (West)