PARLIAMENTARY COLBERTISM
AD. 1689 tinued to import drugs and spices, as their chief returns, till
about 1670, when a considerable quantity of textile goods
was brought over, and some artisans were sent out to in-
troduce patterns suitable for sale at home. So great was
their success, that a few years later it was alleged that “from
the greatest Gallants to the meanest Cook Maids nothing
was thought so fit to adorn their persons as the Fabricks of
India, nor for the ornaments of Chambers like India Skreens,
Cabinets, Beds and Hangings, nor for Closets, like China
and Lacquered Ware.” It thus appeared that the field for
the employment of English subjects was becoming restricted.
through the importation of commodities manufactured abroad;
it was argued that to divert employment from Englishmen to
Hindus was distinctly prejudicial to the good of the realm?
and that, though the East India trade might have been
profitable as long as it was confined to the importation of
Eastern products like spices, it became distinctly hurtful
when it consisted largely of importing textile fabrics and
other goods, which took the place in the home market of
articles already made in England?
There was a great outcry from the fan-makers, who seem
to have been a numerous classé, but the chief complaint arose
in connection with the clothing trades. The Company “finding
the Advantage they had of having their Goods cheap wrought
by the wretched Poverty of that numerous People, have used
sinister Practices to betray the Arts used in their Native
Country, such as sending over Artificers® and Patterns to
instruct them in the way of making Goods, and Mercers to
direct them in the Humour and Fancy of them, to make
them fit our Markets”: this had affected not only the silk
1 Pollexfen, A Discourse of Trade, Coyn and Paper Credit (1697), p. 99.
2 This was another point argued in the attack made by the Turkish Company
on the East India Company in 1681. The Allegations of the Turkey Company and
Others against the East India Company Brit. Mus. 522. 1. 5 (8), p. 4].
8 Compare A Memento to the East India Companies Brit. Mus. 1029. c. 21 (9),
(1700), p. 19]. This consists of a reprint of a remonstrance presented by the East
India Company to the House of Commons in 1628, with animadversions upon it,
showing how much the character of their trade had altered since that time, and
that it could no longer be defended upon the same grounds.
¢ The Fann Makers Grievance [Brit. Mus. 816. m. 12 (97)].
5 This was denied, except as regards one or two dyers, by the East India
Company in their answer to the Allegations of the Turkey Company [Brit. Mus.
592. 1. 5 (8), p. 121.
104
