A Reply to a Paper, entitled, Reasons against the Prohibiting the wearing East-India and Persian Wrought Silks, &c. Humbly offered to the Honourable House of Commons.  
THE first Paragraph of that Paper sets forth the Author's Belief that it will be no inconsiderable Service to the whole Kingdom in general, as well as to the particular Satisfaction of the Honourable House, to publish the Reasons that encouraged the prosecuting the Petition against a Bill brought in for the Prohibition of the wearing East-Indian and Persian Silks, &c. Had the Petitioners been content with giving and submitting their Reasons to the House, the first Paragraph might have past, but they go farther, and say, That upon an equal State of the Matter controverted, it will incontestably appear, how fatal and universally detrimental the Consequence of such a Prohibition must of necessity prove. This seems too great an Assurance to determine the Matter before their Reasons are heard; and even against the Opinion of so August an Assembly, that have already Voted a Bill to be brought in. Their Maxim,[ That Trade in general is free,] is controvertible, and of more use in a popular Mob than a wise Senate; where Trade is considerable in its several Parts. Some Commodities are restrained by Penalties, others encouraged with Immunities: Wool, Fullers-earth, &c. are under the first; Exports of Corn, and building Ships of Burden and Force, under the latter: yet Trade in general is free, and the more to the English Nation by those, which in some respects are the restraining Laws.  
The second Paragraph is no more than a farther Confidence in these words: It will be fully and satisfactorily demonstrated how improbable it is that this Prohibition should answer the Ends proposed by Men designing By-ends, most of them Foreigners. These are Reflections, and such are usually made where Reasons are wanting.  
They then come to Matter of Fact, That the Promoters of the Bill allege that about sixteen Years past there was but an inconsiderable Trade at Canterbury in making wrought Silks, Worsted Stuffs, &c. but that now the English Industry hath mightily increased the Manufactory, &c. To this the Opposers of the Prohibition answer,( for I omit their Excursions and Omens) that the Difference between the Trade then and now arose only from the Dearness of those foreign Commodities, and Cheapness of East-India Goods, which were imported in the Years 1683, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, there being a Contention then between the Company and Interlopers, and not as they pretend; which can be made appear by the Custom-house-Books. I will not use the Authors of these Reasons as they do the Canterbury-Weavers, in reply to this Answer, but take it as it seems they do themselves, and go to the next Particular they bring to strengthen it, in these words:  
Beside, it is allowed that the Trade at Canterbury and Norwich hath been mightily increased this last Year, but not at all from the Reasons they assign, but from the Rise of Guineas. These Arguments are before great Judges; I shall not therefore presume to censure them. But I crave leave to say, to me they seem no more to support the Importation and Use of Indian and Persian Silk, than it would for a Naturalist to assign the Cause of this open Winter, to his Majesty's taking Namur the last campaign.  
The Weavers of Canterbury say, that sixteen Years ago, there was but an inconsiderable Trade at Canterbury, in making wrought Silks, &c. but say these gentlemen, The Reason is because of the Dearness of Foreign Silks, and Cheapness of East-India Goods from twelve to seven Years past. How the Cheapness of East-Indian and Persian Silks can increase our Manufactory of Silks, is a Mystery of an East-India Importation.  
But if this be not sufficient, then the Rise of Guineas is, the Dutch buying up all our Manufactories, led, Hides, &c. This to my weak Understanding is a good Argument for the Canterbury-Weavers; but how it can be made use of against them, I cannot imagine. It runs thus, The Rise of Guineas made the Dutch buy up all the Woollen Manufactory the last Year,( for they bought no Silk); therefore the Silk Manufactory increased for several Years before at Canterbury. Upon the whole Matter it seems they do allow the Manufactory greatly increased, but differ in the Cause of it, and would hinder its Effect and Progress, of which the House are best Judges.  
The next Reason they give, is the present War, which hath occasioned the Vent of all the English Commodities. This is not denied, but what is that to the Increased of our Silk Manufactory that is not exported? for they say, That it is not the Want of East-India Commodities that hath increased them, for that there hath been more imported in four Years past than there was in twenty Years before. These Gentlemen seem very unhappy in bringing Arguments against themselves; for if it be so that these Commodities so mightily increase, there may be the greater Reason to restrain them. And since our English Manufactories cannot abate them, as they have other Foreign Silks, by reason of the Cheapness of the East-India and Persian, then the Parliament have with great judgement pitched upon the way to do it by prohibiting their Wear.  
The next thing they bring against this Prohibition, is, That though they allow Raw Silks are the Product of our Woollen Manufactory, yet, say they, if the wearing any Persian wrought Silks were prohibited, our Woollen Manufactory would be prohibited also among the Persians, who spend more of this Commodity than any Nation of the World. This Assertion is extraordinary, I suppose there will be enough to answer it; nor did I ever hear that at any time went eighty thousand Pounds worth of our Woollen Manufactory in a Year to the East-Indies, and the Persians use but part of it: but allowing what is said, that the Persian should prohibit our Woollen Manufactory, tho they who know the Trade wonder at the Argument, yet what is the Loss if true? They say, This Prohibition would hinder three Parts of the Trade to the East-Indies. Here, in my humble Opinion, they say enough, and there needs no more to confirm the Prohibition, if three Parts in four be returned in Commodities manufactor'd in the Indies, and most consumed in this Kingdom: Is the sending forth one eighth Part of its Purchase in our Woollen Manufactory, a Compensation for the vast: Treasure we sand out in Bullion and Money? They deal fairly in this Confession, and will not deny, for they own it in their following Reasons, that most of these Commodities are consumed in England, and they bring it as an Argument, The improving the Customs; and that if they should be shipped out, it would be a great Loss to the Customs. This is indeed the worst Account that ever appeared in Print of the East-India-Trade, the only Defence being formerly, that there was more shipped out than all the Bullion and Money amounted to of East-India-Commodities: but these Gentlemen say three Parts of four is entirely spent at home; and we know of the other Parts, Pepper excepted, most is consumed at home. So then if we come to make a balance in that Trade by the Estimates these Gentlemen make, we need not go to Flanders and Holland, as they insinuate, for our Loss in Trade, but to the East-Indies. It is a melancholy Improvement, if more in four Years hath been consumed of East-India Commodities than was in twenty Years before.  
I cannot see the mighty dependence our Navigation hath on the East-India-Trade; twenty Ships a Year would undo us, if, as these Gentlemen say, we consume most of that Importation at home.  
The next Reason they bring against this Prohibition is, The unspeakable Benefit the Dutch, Scotch, and other Nations, will have by the Trade, if we do not wear Persian and East-India Silks. The Meaning I suppose is, the Scotch, &c. will be made rich.  
If this Argument were tanti, which to me I confess it is not, yet I presume it would not prevail with many to be content to be made poor, rather than their Neighbours should grow rich: But why we cannot export our Returns from the Indies as well as the Scotch and Dutch, I cannot see; there is but 2 ½ per cent. Duty upon them, these Gentlemen own; and if that were a Burden, it were easily moved; but we are to be Antipodes to all the World beside, and increase our Treasure by Importations. If the Scotch and Dutch were to follow our Methods of consuming most of what they import from the East-Indies, they would soon be content to resign to these Gentlemen that Trade.  
The last which I suppose they bring as the most weighty and prevailing Argument, is, that it will exceedingly diminish the King's Customs. By this and the whole Current of these Gentlemens Arguments, it might be thought all their Conceptions, Words and Understandings, were wrapped up in Persian Silks and Bengals; and if they repeated only those Words to all the Weavers of Canterbury, it were as much to the purpose as all they here bring against them: Their printed Reasons against this Prohibition is to show the Fallacy of the Canterbury-Weavers Pretence of the great Increase of their Manufactories, which they tell us is not so; and for an incontestable Proof( to use their own Word) bring this, that this Prohibition will greatly abate the Customs. The Truth on't is, one would think these Gentlemen were at Cross-purposes, rather than maintaining an Argument.  
Having given such Proof as you see against the Canterbury-Weavers Allegations, they then come to Predictions, and say, This Prohibition with never be an encouragement to the making of Silks in England, except the wearing of Silks made in Holland, Italy, &c. be prohibited also. I wish I could let this Paragraph pass, because it will expose these Gentlemen too much, I will only desire them to look back on their own Paper in the fourth and fifth Paragraphs, and there see whether they do not allow that there is a great Increase of the Canterbury and Norwich Manufactories, and at the same time say, that the East-India and Persian Silks have increased five to one; it is then plain that our Manufactories have abated the Dutch and Italian Silks without a Prohibition, and so they would the East-Indian and Persian if they were not imported cheapter than they can be made in Europe.  
They then tell us, that the Allegation of the Weavers that this Prohibition will open a way for employing a great many Weavers, &c. is as frivolous and insignificant as any of the rest, seeing it may be turned upon themselves, that Dying, Printing, &c. of East-India wrought Silks employs many thousands of Persons. May not both be true? tho it is said the latter is doubted: but were that true, where is the Consequence that the Silk and Woollen Manufactory of England can never be improved, because there are now many Hands employed in Pressing, Dying, &c. of East-India and Persian Silk, which will be all undone for want of Work, when there is a Prohibition of the Wear of East-India and Persian Silks? Now to any European understanding, it would seem that taking of Hands from one employment and putting them to another, would enlarge the latter. I omit the Reflections they make on the Canterbury-Weavers being Foreigners, intending to speak a little of it in the Close, and so come to their many more Reasons that might be suggested to prove, that it is directly against the Interest of the Nation, and in Conclusion will prove fatal to those Manufactories in whose favour it is made: and the reason they give for this Assertion is, Because they ( meaning I suppose the Canterbury-Weavers) have falsely insinuated the increase of their Trade to have proceeded from the Scarcity of these imported Foreign Commodities, when it is occasioned by nothing but the rise of Guinea's, our Miscarriages in the Wars, and the continual Demands and Exactions from abroad.  
Here with their Favour I think they reflect upon the Government, Continual Demands and Exactions from abroad, are hard Words: But what use could they make of this were it all true? First, They deny that the Manufactories of Canterbury are increased, but that it was the great quantities of Persian and East-Indian Silks that were imported here, that beat out the French, Italian and Dutch Silks: Now they own the increase of the Canterbury Manufactories, but say it rose from the Wars, &c. And yet these Wars and Exactions they talk of, happened some Years after the Increase and Growth of our Silk-Manufactories.  
They conclude with repeating what they had before mentioned, though in other Words, viz. Since the Nature of Trade is to exchange one Commodity for another, if we prohibit, the Persian will do the same. If what they use here in Argument, were practised in the Trade they labour to support, the Dispute would be over; but by their own saying it is just the contrary: when they import at least fifteen hundred thousand Pounds value in Manufactor'd Commodities, and carry not two hundred thousand Pounds worth out of ours, the Overplus must then be purchased with Money; and were their Profits Out and Home four for one, yet the Loss must be great to the Nation upon the balance.  
I shall now make some few Remarks upon the whole Matter.  
And first show, what Detriment the use of East-Indian and Persian Silks, Bengalls, &c. have brought to our Woollen Manufactories. I have been  told by several ancient Mercers, and other Dealers in Woollen Manufactories, that since the great Consumption of East-India Manufactories, the use of Tammies, says, and some fine Stuffs for Womens Wear, is in a manner quiter lost, and that they now fell not a twentieth part so much as they formerly did, and that they believe it hath abated several hundred thousand Pounds per Annum of the Woollen Manufactory.  
The wear of East-Indian and Persian Commodities doth also lessen our Silk Manufactories to a great Degree, especially if what these Gentlemen say be true, of the Quantity brought in.  
And if their Maxim in Trade be true, That there must be no Prohibition of Foreign Manufactories, because they will turn the same upon us, our Condition is desperate; for by the same Rule all Nations may impose on us whatever Manufactories they think fit to make, and if we prohibit their use, they will take nothing from us.  
But suppose, which is not impossible, that we should grow so poor as not to be able to purchase or consume their Commodities, must we then lose that Trade? if so, there seems Reason for us to quit it while we have some Money left, and not out of Necessity.  
Instances may be given that show the Mischief of admitting the Increase and Consumption of Foreign Commodities, beyond the Exports of our own Product to purchase.  
That of French Wine, until the Year fifty five, all the Imports of French Wine amounted not to four thousand tons per Annum, and then they were bought in France, Langoons at thirty Crowns, and Grave for twenty four Crowns, and purchased all with Commodities, and we had an overbalance in Money; but by degrees we increased our Importation to that vast expense, that in the Year seventy six, we imported 36000 Tun, and then paid 45 Crowns for Langoon, and as much for Graves Claret, and great part purchased with Money, or Bills of Exchange which is the same; and as we have increased in the French; so we have in the Spanish, and raised the Price of Canaries from ten to twenty Pounds the Pipe in the country.  
I might name several other Commodities, but this may be sufficient to caution the Nation before it be too late, what ever some others may argue out of private Interest, as they do for raising Coin.  
It seems essential for the Preservation of a Kingdom, to keep what Money they can in it, we find it so in this War; the French might have been Masters of us and Europe too, had not England been masters of Money: and there is no way to be so but by Regulating Trade, and perhaps the Parliament could not have fallen upon any one Branch of it that wants it more than this of the East-India Trade. We are above any Nation in the World soonest drawn into Luxury and gaiety, and that Trade contributeth more to it than any we have beside; and whatever is said in defence of it, no Trade in proportion to its Imports takes so little from us of our Commodities. And that which in my humble Opinion should be with greatest Remark noted on that part of it to which this Prohibition relates, is, that it wounds our Woollen Manufactory more than all the other Trade we have in the World: for tho some of them take off but little from us, yet none hinder our own Consumption, and command the use of theirs but this of the East-Indies; for so these Gentlemen in plain words tell us we must be served, or lye under the great Displeasure of those Princes, and Prohibition of our Woollen Manufactory. The Threats I must own are great, but when I consider the Penalty, that seems small, to lose the vent of part of an hundred thousand Pounds Value per Annum of our Manufactories, if we will not submit to the expense of fifteen hundred thousand Pounds Value of their Manufactories.  
I humbly conceive there needs no explaining this matter; and were there any thing in what they say, yet perhaps the great Council of the Nation will not think Manifesto's and Memoirs put in by the King's Subjects in behalf of Foreign Princes, of weight to alter their Resolutions in the Trade of the Nation: if it should, we are precarious in all the Commerce of the Nation; for there will not want Men for every Part to say as much for their private Gain, as these Gentlemen do for theirs. I shall say no more in Answer to the Reasons given to the Opposers of this Prohibition, but only what I promised in the foregoing Lines in relation to the Foreigners they express so much Resentments against; and tho they are very severe in their Expressions, yet considering how they use their own Cause, which I think no one could worse than they have done themselves, they may be excused, otherwise they might be thought more than uncharitable. I remember a Gentleman in the House of Commons speaking something that displeased the House, and being called upon to explain himself, which he not being able to do, was admitted to tell what he meant by the words he spake; after a little pause, he said he had no meaning. Such an Excuse perhaps may be the best these Gentlemen can make for saying, the Canterbury-Weavers, being French, Dutch, and Walloons, make little scruple of benefiting themselves to the damage of the public. I desire these Gentlemen that are so much against Foreigners living in the Kingdom, to look back and see who first brought in our Woollen Manufactory, which is an must be while we are a free People our Treasure and Strength; with it we do, and without it we cannot support our Navigation, not by fetching wrought Silks, &c. from the East-Indies.  
I pray these Gentlemen farther to consider, for it may be in their own Memory, who first introduced and improved our Silk-Manufactory, which is so grown that it prevents the Importation of many hundred thousand Pounds per Annum Value of Foreign wrought Silks. I must also pray them to consider how many worthy Families there are in Norfolk, Suffolk, Kent and London, whose Original was Flemings, Walloons, and French, that are now become as much English-men as ourselves. I would gladly know what makes an English-man. We cannot derive as the Jews from one Father; I own my Original from the Danes, another from the Saxons, a third from the Normans, yet by continuance of Time and Intermarriages we are one People; and so are thousands that came over in the Reign of Queen Elizabeth: and I think it one of the Blessings of this Reign, that encouragement and Provision is made for Foreign Protestants, which I have often said before I had so good Authority as the King's recommending, and the Parliament's voting them a Relief, I know nothing we so much want as Bodies of Men, and it shows a narrow Understanding to discourage their Increase: It was an early Policy we find in the infallible Author, even to the Change of their Religion, To purchase a Family, and gave Reason for it, Shall not their cattle and their Substance, &c. be ours?  
To me there seems much more Reason for to bring in the Hands that work, than the Manufactory made by them: But to carry Patterns of our Fashions into the Indies, where Silks are made cheaper than they can be in Europe, as these Gentlemen have done, shows them Enemies to the Nation. But such Foreigners as incorporate among us, seem better Friends when of our Religion, and come to us for Refuge; and sure we ought as Christians to embrace them: I think few will join with those that declaim against them for making those Manufactories at Home, that these Gentlemen would impose upon the Nation from the East-Indies.  
FINIS.