CHAPTER IX
DUTCH FURNITURE UNDER FRENCH AND ORIENTAL INFLUENCE.
The Dutch Craftsmen in the Employ of Louis XIV—Huguenot Emigration— Marot—The Sopha—Upholstery—The Bed—Chairs—Sconces—Tables—Rooms— English and Dutch Alliances—Hampton Court—Queen Mary— Looking-glasses—Chandeliers—Chimney-pieces—The _style refugié_— John Hervey’s Purchases—Oriental Furniture manufactured after European Patterns—Complaints of Home Manufacturers—Trade with the Indies—“Prince Butler’s Tale”—Enormous Importations—Imported Textiles—Foreign Textiles for Upholstery.
The last designer of furniture of any importance that has hitherto demanded attention is Crispin van de Passe. The next one is also a Dutchman. It is noticeable that the arts and crafts of France and England were always deeply affected by the activities of the Low Countries. France, even during the reign of Louis XIV, owed much to Dutch culture and energy. Boulle, who was of Dutch extraction (_see_ page 115), gave his name to a special kind of furniture which he developed and elaborated.
Another name famous in Decorative Art was that of Cander Jean Oppenordt, born in Guelderland in 1639. He emigrated to Paris to seek his fortune, and became “_ébéniste du Roi_,” was naturalized in 1679, and allowed a lodging in the Louvre in 1684. To him was given the charge of furnishing the Palace of Versailles, and in 1688 he made some beautiful marquetry furniture for the Duke of Burgundy. His son, Gilles Marie Oppenord (1672–1742), was architect to the Duke of Orleans.
France owed much to Italy, Belgium and Holland during the first half of the seventeenth century, but what she borrowed she repaid with interest. In 1685, the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes induced fifty thousand families of the best French blood, intellect, art, culture and craftsmanship to seek voluntary exile. The Huguenots took refuge from the _Dragonnades_ in England, Holland and Germany; and those countries benefited by the short-sighted policy of a bigoted king. So many goldsmiths, carvers, architects, designers and artists were among the emigrants that their subsequent work in the art world came to be known as the _style refugié_.
Undoubtedly the most commanding figure in this band was Daniel Marot. He was a member of a family of eminent French artists. He was a pupil of Lepautre, who for many years worked at the Gobelins manufactory and dominated the first period of the Louis XIV style. This style was particularly majestic, pompous and heavy, the general forms consisting of a mixture of the straight line and curve, and broad surfaces adapted for decoration. The heavy straining-rail and pilaster as a support are also characteristic. The ornaments consist of Roman and heroic trophies of antiquity, helmets, cuirasses, casques, plumes, swords, shields, laurel-wreaths and clubs, winged Victories, the elliptical cartouche, river gods leaning on urns, large cornucopias, heavy garlands, or swags, of fruit and leaves, the broad acanthus leaf, the mascaron, the swelling scroll, and the combination of scroll and shell. Lepautre was also fond of introducing the alcove into a room.
A typical screen of this period is shown in Fig. 39. The massiveness and boldness of curve of the lines of the frame are characteristic of the artists of the Louis XIV period who formed the _style refugié_; and the grace and fancy of the design in the tapestry filling are worthy of more than passing consideration. The _Chinoiserie_ influence is already apparent in the small hanging canopy.
At this date the _sopha_ was greatly in vogue. This was really nothing more than the old settle with carved framework, and richly upholstered. It rarely accommodated more than two persons, and, as a rule, only one is shown sitting upon it. The legs and straining-rail followed the general lines and decoration of those of the stands for cabinets, toilet-tables, etc. The arms were sometimes solid or stuffed, and sometimes open-work covered with velvet or other textiles. Sometimes the _sopha_ is furnished with a bolster at both ends. Typical forms are shown in Figs. 40, 41 and 42.
Although Marot was well acquainted with porcelain and Eastern wares in France, he found the prevailing taste much more extravagant when he took refuge in Holland. There he became the supreme exponent of the _style refugié_. William of Orange appointed him his chief architect and minister of works, and Marot accompanied him to England at the Glorious Revolution a couple of years later. In Holland, he designed much interior work for palaces and noblemen’s seats, including staircases, panelling, chimney-pieces, cornices, china-shelves and brackets, and all kinds of domestic furniture. He was also extremely prolific in designs for sumptuous upholstery in velvet, worsted and other textiles for chairs, screens, hangings, curtains, bed-heads, etc. Marot died in 1718; and his published works of Decorative Art include many hundred designs representative of that period immediately preceding the Regency, known in England as “William and Mary” and “Queen Anne.”
Upholstery was an exceedingly important part of interior decoration at that period, and there were right and wrong ways to hang curtains and decorate the framework of beds with valances, fringes, lambrequins, etc. Figs. 44 and 45 show two of Marot’s arrangements of lambrequins.
The massive bed with its four posts of carved oak, which had so long been in fashion, had now been supplanted by one in which upholstery was the chief decorative feature. This bed consisted of a light frame supporting a canopy, the four corners of which were surmounted by a bunch of plumes, or ornaments, or knobs, in imitation of ostrich feathers, called “_pommes_.” The furnishings of the bed, including head-board, canopy, counterpane, curtains and valances, were of the same material—velvet, brocade, silk, satin, chintz, or white dimity worked in coloured crewels or worsted. Three beds of this period are to be seen at Hampton Court Palace—William’s, Mary’s and Queen Anne’s. Both William’s and Mary’s are now in the Private Diningroom. The former, which is about fifteen feet high, is covered entirely with crimson damask, and Mary’s, which is much smaller, with crimson velvet. The small bed used by George II when he lived in this Palace, and which stands between William’s and Mary’s, may also belong to this period. Queen Anne’s bed is more elaborate. This stands in her State Bed-chamber; and it is not unlikely that Queen Anne’s bed originally belonged to Mary; for she owned a number of very handsome beds draped with materials of the latest fashion. The elaborate designs upon the rich Genoa velvet that adorns this piece of furniture are quite in the Marot style.
The bed of this period was particularly suited to Marot’s taste, and he made many designs, in which the festoon is conspicuous.
The bed shown in the frontispiece of this book is a typical example of Marot. The heavy cornice is adorned with a cartouche in the centre and four “_pommes_” of ostrich feathers in vases at the corners. The headboard is also characteristic of Marot, and consists of an urn with swags of leaves and husks, with mermaids as caryatides or supporters at the sides. At the base of the bed is a mascaron. The silk draperies are arranged in formal swags tied with bows of silk and cords and tassels, and the valance around the bottom of the bed is similar to the cornice decoration. Running around the cornice is a brass rail for the outside curtains, which can be drawn around the bed enclosing it entirely, with the exception of the “_pommes_.” The counterpane, bolster and pillow are covered with material that carries Marot designs. The pillow is adorned with tassels.
Another of Marot’s designs for a bed is reproduced in Plate XLVIII. This is interesting on more than one account. The carving of the canopy shows the advent of the _rocaille_ work that ran mad during the periods of the Regency and Louis XV. The scrolls in the woodwork at the foot of the bed are of the same form as the stretchers in tables, chairs, stands and stools of the period. The decoration of the room is worth notice also. The walls are covered with tapestry, and the same lambrequin that adorns the bed is repeated all along the walls under the cornice. The same decoration is repeated around the seat of the armchair on either side of the bed. The low foot-posts of the bed are surmounted by “_pommes_,” which usually hold the positions above, here occupied by carved shells. Finally, the sconce mirror over the chair is graceful in form.
Queen Anne’s bed at Hampton Court Palace gives one a good idea of the Marot decoration. It has a square canopy and tester, below which hang curtains that when drawn enclose the entire bed. The head-board is upholstered. The furnishings of this bed are entirely of stamped or cut velvet, a white ground with formal patterns of crimson and orange. The chairs, tabourets and long forms are also covered with this material.
A beautiful chandelier of silver decorated with glass balls hangs from the ceiling, which was painted by Sir James Thornhill. The design depicts Aurora rising from the ocean in her chariot, drawn by four white horses and attended by cupids, while Night and Sleep sink away.
Marot’s armchairs owe their effect almost entirely to upholstery: the framework is certainly solid, heavy and ungainly. He prefers carved feet of animals’ claws to the popular Dutch bulb. A typical form of the seat and legs appears in Fig. 43. The top of the back is usually a straight line, though, if the chair is designed for a prince or noble, the centre sometimes rises in a carved crown or coronet. The woodwork is generally gilded.
Marot’s sconces usually had only one candle socket (_see_ Plate XLIX). When the mirror was of silver, or any burnished metal, its surface was generally convex. When it was of glass it was flat, but very often the edges were bevelled. The three examples on Plate XLIX show the characteristic ornamental details of mascarons, floral scrolls, and heavy _chutes_ of the bell-flower or wheat-ear. The same ornamentation, intermingled with “_pommes_,” geometrical lines and broken scrolls, distinguishes the two large mirrors above. Other handsome oval and rectangular mirrors appear on Plate L. The lower one on the right, with cornucopias disgorging _chutes_ of fruit, bears the crossed double L of Louis XIV, with a royal crown, and therefore must belong to Marot’s early period before he went to Holland. The mascarons and human figures on the other mirrors on this plate also belong to the early Louis Quatorze period.
On Plate LI are two more mirrors, large and small, one above an inlaid console table and three candle or candelabra stands. These are interesting as showing the extent to which Marot made use of caryatides and swags in decorative work. It will be noticed that his Junos, Floras and Venuses are functional as well as graceful and decorative. With their heads and arms they have real work to do and weights to support.
Tables of Marot’s design are represented on Plate LII, which also gives a series of eight mascarons. Plate LIII shows three of Marot’s tall clocks, with details of decoration and designs for key handles. The little frieze of designs for keyholes at the top of the Plate show that the forms of china-ware were even invading goldsmiths’ work.
It will be noticed that the grandfather’s clock in Marot’s mind was somewhat more ornate than the modern idea of that timepiece. Chippendale owed a heavy debt to Marot’s forms of clocks and candlestands.
Marot’s designs for rooms show the limit to which porcelain could be used as a decorative feature. There are brackets, brackets everywhere. Vases of different shapes and sizes stand on the ledges, oval, circular or straight, above the doors and stud the cornices; but it is the chimney-pieces that serve, as the tiered _dressoir_ did in Mediaeval days for plate, in the display of porcelain. The corner chimney-pieces of Hampton Court with their diminishing shelves give some faint idea of the many plates of Marot’s designs. Some of these show brackets and shelves that support hundreds of cups, saucers, pots, bowls, bottles and vases. In one extreme case more than three hundred pieces may be counted on the chimneypiece and hearth alone. These are not merely suggestions, for we have evidence that, in Holland, rooms decorated in this style really existed. Thus one poet sings:
OF THE PORCELAIN ROOM
_.... Geheel zijn huis, ja zelfs het klein gemak, Blonk als een diamant—duizend fijne kopjes Vercierden ’t kabinet, hoe veel japanse popjes, Uit amber, zeekoraal en roosverw paerlemoer, Vervulden ’t groot salet._
(His whole house, even his small parlour, Shone like a diamond—a thousand small cups Decorated this parlour; how many Japanese figures (dolls) Of amber, sea-coral and pink mother-of-pearl Filled the big room!)
On Plate L two brackets will be noticed, for the support respectively of one and three China jars.
A typical English mansion of this period is Holme Lacy in Herefordshire. Though dating from Tudor days, it was partly rebuilt and decorated in the reign of William III. The principal apartments are well proportioned, and are embellished with richly stuccoed ceilings, with compartments of flowers and other designs. The “saloon” is particularly remarkable for its ceiling of pendent flowers and fruits, and carvings by Grinling Gibbons over the chimney-piece. Superb carvings by this great master, representing birds, shell-fish, fruit and flowers, are to be seen in all of the rooms on the ground floor, which communicate with one another by folding doors. The gardens, too, are noticeable, for they were also laid out in the style of King William’s day, and contain yew hedges of extraordinary height and thickness.
At this period English and Dutch taste were identical. This is only what we might expect when we consider the bonds that united the reigning houses and nobility of the two countries. Mary, the eldest daughter of Charles I, married the Prince of Orange; and their son, William, married Mary, the daughter of James II. During this period, also, some of the English nobility went to the Low Countries for wives. In 1650, the Earl of Derby married Dorothea Helena, a daughter of John Baron de Rupa, in Holland. She was a Maid of Honour of another ill-fated Stuart, Elizabeth, the beautiful Queen of Bohemia. Baron Colepepper married Margaret van Hesse, and the Earl of Arlington married another Dutch woman, Isabella, daughter of Henry of Nassau, Lord of Auverquerque, in the early days of the Restoration. The Earl of Bellomont married Isabella’s sister. The Earl of Ailesbury, in 1700, married Charlotte d’Argenteau, Countess d’Esseneux and Baroness de Melobroeck in Flanders: and the list might be extended. Incidentally we may note that, in 1646, the Earl of Berkeley married Elizabeth Massingberd, the daughter of the treasurer of the East India Company.
It has already been noted that Charles II was hospitably entertained in Holland at his sister’s court during part of his exile. We have also seen that James II was a connoisseur in Oriental art products. When the daughter of the latter, Mary, married her cousin William and settled down in Holland, her mind was fully receptive to Dutch tastes and ways of living. When she became Queen of England, on the exile of her father, it was a Dutch palace into which she transformed Hampton Court, that splendid enforced gift of Wolsey’s to Henry VIII. The English student, therefore, need not cross the Channel to study Dutch interior decoration and furniture of the close of the seventeenth century. The majority of the rooms and grounds are still practically in the same condition as they were when inhabited by William and Mary, under whose direct orders the work was designed and supervised by Marot and Sir Christopher Wren. A considerable amount of the Marot furniture still survives there. Defoe tells us in his _Tour_ (1724):
“Her Majesty (Mary) had here a fine apartment (Hampton Court), with a set of lodgings for her private retreat only, but most exquisitely furnished, particularly a fine chintz bed, then a great curiosity; another of her own work while in Holland, very magnificent, and several others; and here also was Her Majesty’s fine collection of delft ware, which indeed was very large and fine; and here was also a vast stock of fine china-ware, the like whereof was not then to be seen in England; the long gallery, as above, was filled with this china, and every other place where it could be placed with advantage.”
Although an Englishwoman, Mary had all the virtues and tastes of a Dutch _vrouw_. She kept her husband informed of all that happened from day to day, bewailed his absence and neglect, and busied herself and her Maids of Honour with needlework, and, perhaps, with tenderly dusting her cherished porcelain. When in London, she used to spend many an hour and all her pocket money shopping at the India houses and in the New Exchange. She set the fashion for china-mania, and may well have inspired Lady Mary Wortley Montagu’s lines:
“What shall I do to spend the hateful day ... Strait then I’ll dress and take my wonted range Thro’ India shops, to Motteux’s, or the Change, Where the tall jar erects its stately pride, With antique shapes in China’s azure dyed; There careless lies a rich brocade unrolled, Here shines a cabinet with burnished gold. But then, alas! I must be forced to pay, And bring no penn’orths, not a fan away!”
Hampton Court was remodelled under Mary’s direction. It almost entirely lost its Tudor character, and became characteristically Dutch in appearance. Sir Christopher Wren’s talents were called into requisition to design the shelves, cornices and tiered corner chimney-pieces that are still to be seen there. Verrio was employed to adorn the staircases and ceilings with his gaudy frescoes. Grinling Gibbons, a Dutchman, whom Evelyn had discovered, was responsible for the carvings that even to-day are the admiration and despair of the woodworker. The fish-ponds and gardens were laid out in the formal Dutch taste, with fountains, clipped trees, hedges, avenues, geometrical beds, an orangery and an aviary of tropical birds. The furniture was due to Marot and Wren.
The comparatively small amount of furniture now to be seen in the show-rooms of Hampton Court belongs mainly to this period. It consists principally of chairs, stools (_tabourets_), beds, card-tables, mirrors and chandeliers.
Many of these specimens are extremely interesting, showing the Marot taste. Of the latter, there are stools, chairs and tables with the heavy scroll foot and stretchers, the latter joining in the centre and supporting there a carved ornament; other tables have four scroll supports and stand on bulb feet. Some of the stools and tabourets have gilded woodwork. Among the later style we may note a chair in William III’s Presence Chamber, with tall back, jar-shaped splat, cabriole leg, hoof feet and straining-rails, the front one higher than the other; and also two card-tables in the King’s Drawing-room, with slender legs ending in the hoof foot, and the tops supplied with wells for the counters and slight depressions for the candles.
About thirty handsome looking-glasses of the period are there. Many of them are pier-glasses hung, of course, between the windows. One of the most noticeable of these is a fine pier-glass in William III’s State Bedroom, dating from his time. This has a border of cut blue glass, the edges are bevelled, and the centre contains the monogram W. R., surmounted by the crown in blue and white glass. A similar mirror hangs over the fireplace.
Another looking-glass with a blue glass frame hangs between the windows in Queen Mary’s Closet.
Another beautiful chandelier hangs in William III’s Presence Chamber: this is of silver, with eight lower and four upper arms. It is decorated with the harp, thistle, etc. A still more ornate one hangs in the Queen’s Audience Chamber. This is a magnificent combination of silver and crystal, with silver sea-horses and lions supporting the silver branches, crystal balls and drops, and a crystal crown on top.
The mantelpieces are extremely interesting, as many of them are of the old inverted funnel shape, and are supplied with tiers of shelves— sometimes as many as six—for the reception of ornaments. Upon these now stands a good deal of blue and white china, many pieces of which belonged to Queen Mary. Pieces that are known to have belonged to her are two blue and white jars and two goddesses in Queen Mary’s Closet, and two goddesses and two vases, about eighteen inches high, on the mantelpiece of William III’s Presence Chamber.
Charles II, who, while a royal refugee, spent much time in Holland, had acquired the new taste. It was there, doubtless, that he saw visions of wealth in the Indies that later led him to grant the English East India Company a charter, and to embark on a disastrous and inglorious war, which resulted in London hearing foreign guns for the first time since England was a nation. His keen appreciation of Oriental works of art, however, was somewhat dulled when his bride, Catherine of Braganza, brought him a shipload of cabinets and ceramics in lieu of the dowry her mother had promised, although Evelyn, in his description of Hampton Court (1662), says: “The Queen brought over with her from Portugal such Indian cabinets as had never before been seen here.”
It is frequently asserted with apparent authority that Mary carried the Dutch taste for porcelain and the manufactures of the Far East into England; but, as we have seen, this idea is not well founded. Herself a china-maniac, she merely set the royal stamp of approval on contemporary taste, and made Hampton Court a model of the _style refugié_. That style dominated English and Dutch homes before she heartlessly danced in the Palace of Whitehall from which her father had fled.
Hampton Court, remodelled under her directions, was not completed till 1693. Many documents show that the _style refugié_ was popular in English aristocratic homes before that date.
Under William and Mary, London swarmed with Dutch merchants and refugee Huguenot arts and craftsmen, and was almost as much of an Eastern bazaar as Amsterdam was. Mary set the pace, and wealth and aristocracy gladly followed. As an example of the vogue, we cannot do better than take the diary of the wealthy John Hervey, afterwards Earl of Bristol, and quote a few entries of expenditure.
He was always buying porcelain and other Oriental wares “for dear wife.” On July 6, 1689, he notes: “Paid to Katherine Scott for 12 leaves of cut Japan skreens, 2 pieces of India damask and 6 Dutch chairs, £65.” In the following July, he also bought from John van Colima, a Dutchman, who had probably followed William III to London, “a parcel of old China for £3 2_s._ 6_d._” Though the Earl dealt more extensively with “Medina ye Jew,” “Leeds ye mercer,” “Seamer ye goldsmith” and many “India houses” in the New Exchange, we find him still patronizing the Dutchman after the death of his first wife, as is shown by the following entries: “1696, Jan. 11: Paid Calama, ye Dutchman in Green Street, for a parcell of china for my dear wife, £31 8_s._ 4_d._ May 4: Calamar, ye Dutchman, for another parcel of China, £10 4_s._” Two years later he also pays “John Van Collema, for an Indian trunk, £35.” Another Dutchman who enjoyed this nobleman’s patronage was “Mr. Gerreit Johnson, ye Cabinett-maker,” who, on May 25, 1696, was paid £70 “for ye black sett of glass, table and stands, and for ye glasses, etc., over ye chimneys and elsewhere in my dear wife’s apartment.”
Gerreit Johnson, whom the Earl patronized, was a fashionable cabinet-maker who made the china-cabinets for Queen Mary that were placed in a room at Hampton Court called “the Delft Ware Closett.” It is interesting to note that the mirrors and cabinets in the Countess of Bristol’s boudoir had black japanned framework.
His diary and expense account shows that his purchases of furniture and _bric-à-brac_ faithfully reflected the prevailing taste for Oriental wares and the _style refugié_. He did not exclusively patronize Dutchmen.
In 1688, he paid “to Frenoye, the silkman, for the fringe of the bed, edgings for the window curtains, etc., £155”; “to the joyner who made the chairs, stools and squabs for my wife, £19”; and “for gold and crimson fringe for the India bed quilt, £17.”
In 1689, he bought “for dear wife” a white teapot and basin, £4 16_s._ 9_d._; two china basins, £1 1_s._ 6_d._; an India trunk, £7; India quilt for a bed, £38; a “brockadal hanging in my wife’s anti-chamber, £11 10_s._”; and “to a French varnisher for ten chairs, a couch and two tabourettes, £12.”
In 1690, his purchases included “silver andirons, for my dear wife her closett chimney, £13 5_s._“; “a glass screen, £1 1_s._ 6_d._”; “two pair of basins for dear wife, £1 12_s._“; “a large China punch-bowl, with a large jarr and two white cupps, £3 5_s._“; “sett of cupps and saucers, £2”; six other saucers, 10_s._; “two china beakers, £2 11_s._“; two great jarrs of china and two smaller ones, “with one very little one,” £7 3_s._; a parcel of old china, £21; another parcel of old china, £6 10_s._; “another sett of old china for dear wife, £22”; “a pair of old china roul wagons” (large blue and white vases), £7 10_s._ 6_d._; a pair of china cupps and a little jarr, £1 6_s._; for a china teapot basin, £1 1_s._ 6_d._; an old china bottle and two china dishes, £1 15_s._; “at a curiosity shop, 10_s._“; “a rich piece of India atlas, £13 10_s._”; “a parcel of Indian things, £5 7_s._ 6_d._”; and “a pair of china jarrs, £1 4_s._”
In 1691, he bought a “Jappan travelling strong water cellar, £5 7_s._ 6_d._”; a “Persian carpet (all of silk) to lay under a bed, and an old china roulwaggon, 22 guineys”; “a piece of blue Indian stuff, £2 15_s._”; and “a candle-skreen, £1 6_s._” (The “roulwaggon” is a kind of vase.)
In 1692, he enters “two china rice potts for dear wife, £5”; “a china jarr, £2 10_s._”; and “a parcel of china, £2 14_s._”
It is evident from the above that at the close of the seventeenth century, Huguenot, Chinese, Japanese, Indian, English and Dutch artists and artisans had combined to produce a style, the leading spirit of which in England and Holland was Marot.
A noticeable fact in connexion with the European craze for Asiatic art products is that, though the English and Dutch highly admired the native wares, the European merchants sent out their own patterns and designs for furniture and ceramics. It is even maintained that the famous “Willow Plate” was the design of a Dutchman. The evidence of the practice of exploiting foreign labour in the field of home taste is overwhelming; and, as the century advanced, the guilds, city companies and other trades unions in England, France and Holland grew more and more restive under the burden of “Chinese cheap labour.” Mazarin was one of the early enthusiasts in France to encourage Eastern importations.
In the _Mémoirs_ of La Grande Mademoiselle (1658), we read: “The Cardinal (Mazarin) behaved in a very delightful and galant manner. He took the two Queens (Anne of Austria and Henrietta Maria) and the Princess of England and myself into a gallery that was filled with all that could be imagined in the way of precious stones, jewels, furniture, stuffs and everything beautiful from China; crystal chandeliers, mirrors, tables and cabinets of all kinds, silver vessels, perfumes, gloves, ribbons and fans.”
Towards the close of the century the craze for Oriental wares had assumed such proportions that in France Louis XIV enacted sumptuary laws to protect native industries; and in Holland and England the artisans grumbled bitterly over the hard times occasioned by the vogue. The Eastern workmen accepted patterns and supplied orders that natives of Western Europe could not venture to undertake. The guilds and city companies admitted the superiority of Oriental work, and cried aloud for protection. Thus, in 1700, the Joiners’ Company addressed a petition against the importation of manufactured cabinet work from the East Indies. In this they state that they have “of late years arrived at so great a perfection as exceeds all Europe.”
“But several merchants and others,” they continue, “have procured to be made in London of late years and sent over to the East Indies patterns and models of all forms of cabinet goods, and have yearly returned from thence such quantities of cabinet wares, manufactured there after the English fashion, that the said trade in England is in great danger of being utterly ruined, etc., etc.”
The following goods, manufactured in India, have been imported within these four years, viz.:
244 cabinets. 655 tops for stands. 6,580 tea-tables. 818 lacquered boards. 428 chests. 597 sconces. 70 trunks. 589 looking-glasses. 52 screens. 4,120 dressing, comb and powder-boxes.
The Japanners also brought their grievances before the authorities in 1710. The taste for japanned goods had forced them to endeavour to make worthy imitations for home consumption, and they thought they were entitled to patronage and tariff protection. The evils are fully indicated in the preamble to their petition:
“Many of the artificers (cabinet-makers, turners, goldbeaters and coppersmiths) have brought (the curious and ingenious art and mystery of japanning, so much improved in England of late years) to so great perfection as to exceed all manner of Indian lacquer, and to equal the right japan itself, by enduring the fire in the boiling of liquors.
“Also it will, if encouraged, vastly improve both the wood and iron trades for cisterns, monteiths, punch-bowls, tea-tables and several sorts of ironware, which would be useless if not improved by our English lacquer.
“But the merchants, sending over English patterns and models to India, and bringing such quantities of Indian lacquered wares (especially within the last two years), great numbers of families are by that means reduced to miserable poverty.”
The trade with the Indies thus encountered bitter opposition, and many tracts were published calling attention to the alleged grievances of native workmen from its prosecution. In 1700, _Reasons_, a tract, tells us: “The charter of the East India Company was confirmed by King Charles II in the thirteenth year of his reign, and the law for permitting bullion to be exported was made soon after. In 1672 or 1673, several artificers were sent over by the Company with great quantity of English patterns to teach the Indians how to manufacture goods to make them vendible in England and the rest of the European markets. After which began the trade in manufactured goods from the Indies.”
In 1699, also, a bitter wail went up in a broadside entitled _Prince Butler’s Tale_:
When first the India trade began, And ships beyond the tropics ran In quest of various drugs and spices, And sundry other strange devices. Saltpetre, drugs, spice and such trading Composed the bulk of all their lading: Bengals and silks of India’s making Our merchants then refused to take in, Knowing it would their country ruin And might prove to their own undoing. Nor did they carry gold or bullion To fetch home what supplants our woollen; Nor were this nation fond to wear Such Indian toys which cost so dear. Then were we clad in woollen stuffs, With cambric bands and lawn ruffs, Or else in silk which was imported For woollen goods which we exported; Which silk our English weavers bought And into various figures wrought. That scarce a child was to be seen Without Say frock, that was of green. Our hangings, beds, our coats and gowns Made of our wool in clothing towns, This nation then was rich and wealthy And in a state which we call’d healthy. But since the men of Gath arose, And for their chief Goliath chose, And since that mighty giant’s reign Whose chiefest aim was private gain, This trade was drove on by such measures As soon exhausted much our treasures; For then our chiefest artists went With patterns, and with money sent, To make and purchase Indian ware, For which this nation pays full dear. Then by great gifts of _finest_ touches To lords and ladies, dukes and duchess, So far prevailed as set the fashion Which, plague-like, soon spread o’er the nation. Our ladies all were set a gadding, After these toys they ran a madding; And nothing then would please their fancies, Nor Dolls, nor Joans, nor wanton Nancies Unless it was of Indians’ making; And if ‘twas so, ‘twas wondrous taking. This antick humour so prevailed, Tho’ many ‘gainst it _greatly_ railed, ‘Mongst all degrees of female kind That nothing else could please their mind. Tell ‘em the following of such fashion Wou’d beggar and undo the nation And ruin all our labouring poor That must or starve, or beg at door, They’d not at all regard your story, But in their painted garments glory; And such as were not Indian proof They scorn’d, despised, as paltry stuff; And like gay peacocks proudly strut it, When in our streets along they foot it.
* * * * *
And happy thrice would England be, If, while they’re living, we could see Our noble ladies but beginning To wear our wool of finest spinning, Or in such silks our workmen make, For which our merchants cloth to take; Which soon would bring them in such fashion As they’d be worn throughout this nation, By all degrees, and sex, and ages, From highest peers to lowest pages; Nor would the meanest trull, or besses, Delight to wear these Indian dresses, Which certainly would profit bring To them, their tenants, and their king.
To show how enormous was the trade with the East Indies at the end of the century, we need only examine the records of sales of the cargoes of three ships at the East India House in 1700. In this we omit all mention of sugar, tea, coffee, bezoar stones, ambergris, drugs of all sorts, sweetmeats, gems, musk, aloes, carpets, rugs, and all kinds of woven silk and cotton goods. The other goods, “besides great quantities unsold of toyes and small goods,” fetched over £200,000, which at the present day might represent three-quarters of a million sterling:
£ China-ware pieces 150,000 Fans 38,557 Lacquer’d sticks for fans 13,470 Lacquer’d trunks, escretors, bowls, cups, dishes, etc. 10,500 Lacquer’d tables inlaid 189 Lacquer’d panels in frames, painted and carved for rooms 47 Lacquer’d boards 178 Lacquer’d brushes 3,099 Lacquer’d tables not inlaid 277 Lacquer’d fans for fire 174 Lacquer’d boards for screens 54 Screens set in frames 71 Paper josses 1,799 Shells painted double gilt 281 Paper painted for fans 377 Images of copper, stone, wood and earth 600 Pictures 669 Brass and iron leaves for lanthorns Brass hinges in chests Embroideries for curtains, valloons and counterpanes
Among the textiles that were imported from the East Indies, Persia and China at the end of the seventeenth century, and used for curtains, upholstery, cushions, etc., were many varieties of wrought silks, “dyed Bengals,” and printed or stained “callicoes,” known under the following names:
Allibanies. Allejaes. Ammores. Addecannees. Agentbannies. Atlasses. Addaties. Brawles. Bengalis or Nilas. China silks. Chawters. Cherconnees. Chucklaes. Checquered silks. Carpetts. Callawaypoose. Canvas bolts. Cuttannees. Cuttannees, Striped. Cuttannees, Flowered. Cuttannees, Wrought. Culgees. Chints, Serunge. Chints, Caddy. Chints, Surrat. Chints, Brampore. Chints, Culme. Chints, Pattanna, Chints, Gulconda. Chints, Wrought. Damasks. Derribasts. Damask nankeens. Elatches. Elatches, Lingua. Ginghams coloured. Gelongs. Gelongs, printed and painted. Gelongs, striped. Gorgoreas. Gauzes. Goachon Cherulas. Guiney stripes. Girdles. Herba Taffeties. Herba Lungees. Hockings. Jammawars. Longes Flowered. Mahobutt Bannes. Mocha silks. Muttrasses. Nankeen Taffeties. Nillaes. Niccannees. Paunches. Pelongs. Putkaes. Peniascoes. Phota Lungees. Pallungpores. Peniascoes or Penasses. Pholcarees. Quilts. Romalls silk. Romalls cotton. Romalls serunge. Rastaes. Shalbasts. Soofeys. Sattins plain. Satin nankeens. Soops. Seersuckers. Sacerguntees. Sooseys. Shaulbasts. Silk Lungees. Taffeties. Taffety nankeens. Velvets.
The above list is copied from a tract protesting against foreign importations that was printed about 1700.