[46] In the eighteenth century a writer well acquainted with Manchester manufactures still referred to cotton as wool (Infra, pp. 37-38).
[47] The Treasure of Traffike (London, 1641), pp. 32-34.
[48] W. H. Price, “On the Beginning of the Cotton Industry in England,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. xx., pp. 608-613. He quotes from London Guildhall Library, vol. Beta, Petition and Parliamentary Matters, 1620-1621, No. 16 (old No. 25). My attention was drawn to this reference by its being quoted by S. J. Chapman in V.C.H. Lancs., ii., p. 380. Mr. Price also gives a reference (State Papers Domestic, lix. 5) of the presumed date, 1610, where a petitioner asks the Earl of Salisbury for confirmation of a grant made to him for reformation of frauds daily committed in the manufacture of “bombazine cotton such as groweth in the land of Persia being no kind of wool.”
[49] See note infra, pp. 195-196.
[50] See infra, p. 197.
[51] P. 22.
[52] The fact that the writer of the pamphlet makes no mention of cotton in connection with fustians raises a speculation as to the character of the following species of new drapery. He certainly implies that it was something distinct from the “cottons” mentioned so frequently in the sixteenth century: “A sort of cloth is made called Manchester or Lancashire plaines to make cottons, which containe about a yard in breadth; these are often bought by merchants and others, which cut them to length according to a kersie, and hath them dressed and dyed in forme to a kersie, the which are not onely vented in foreign parts, but many of them vented in the Realme; which cloth proves very unprofitable in wearing” (p. 32).
[53] Pp. 33-34.
[54] Cunningham, Growth of English Industry and Commerce, ii. pp. 82-83.
[55] Smiles, The Huguenots (1870), p. 56.