25 March 1667: Burials must henceforth be in wool, in order to support woollen manufacturers and reduce linen imports
HMG. 1819. An Act for Burying in Woollen Only. The Statutes of the Realm, Vol. 5. London: Dawsons. Get it:
.Unedited excerpt
If an excerpt is used in the book, it will be shorter, edited and, where applicable, translated.
For the encouragement of the woollen manufactures of this kingdom and prevention of the exportation of the monies thereof for the buying and importing of linen be it enacted … that from and after the five and twentieth day of March in the year of our Lord one thousand six hundred sixty seven no person or persons whatsoever shall be buried in any shirt, shift or sheet made of, or mingled with, flax hemp, silk, hair, gold or silver, or other than what shall be made of wool only, or be put into any coffin lined or faced with anything made of, or mingled with, flax hemp, silk or hair upon pain of the forfeiture of the sum of five pounds, to be employed to the use of the poor of the parish where such person shall be buried for, and towards the providing a stock or work house for the setting them at work, to be levied by the church wardens and overseers of the poor of such parish or one of them by warrant from any justice of the peace or mayor, alderman or head officer of city, town or place corporate respectively within their several limits by distress and sale of the goods of the party interred contrary to this Act rendering the overplus, or in default thereof by distress and sale of the goods of any that had a hand in the putting such person into such shift, sheet or coffin contrary to this Act, or did order or dispose the doing thereof to be levied and employed as abovesaid.
Provided that no penalty appointed by this Act shall be incurred for or by the reason of any person that shall die of the plague, though such person be buried in linen.
Comment
Comment
The 1666 Act was generally disregarded – burial in linen has a long tradition – and in 1678 more stringent legislation was passed, obliging the clergy to confirm in the registers that an affidavit had been made to the effect that the body was wrapped in woollen only. For burial in linen there was a penalty of £5, half of which went to the informer and half to the poor of the parish. For the moneyed, this became viewed as a tax to be paid rather than a law to be obeyed, and would be halved by the nomination of an informer from the family circle. Enforcement had ended well before the statues were repealed in 1814. The three acts in question are 18 & 19 Cha. II c. 4 (1666), 30 Cha. II c. 3 (1678) and 32 Cha. II c. 1 (1680).
The affidavit requirement made this, where enforced, a tax on Quakers until passage under William of Orange of the Quakers Act 1695, which allowed Quakers to substitute an affirmation where the law previously required an oath. An anecdote. John Ecroyd buried his young son James in his orchard at Briercliffe, near Burnley, on 4 June 1683:
In the latter end of the 6th month 1683, Richard Whitchelqh, John Hargreaves, and Lawrence Thornber, wardens, and Richard Swaine, overseer, took from [me] John Ecroyd of Briercliff, a kersey piece and a stone of wool, worth £2 10s. (beside other goods returned again) by warrant from Thomas Bredwell called Justice, upon information of Robert Hartley of Burnley called curate, for not making certificate upon oath of my child being buried in woollen. Though it was told the said Thomas Bredwell, that information was given to one called a minister, called James Hargreaves, unto whom, by right it did belong to receive the same; and also that my child was buried in woollen. Yet being nothing would satisfy but the oath, and I could in conscience ask none to do it (or swear for me) distress was made as above. John Ecroyd (Friend 1835).
I wish I had (also) found an appropriate first-person excerpt from Yorkshire.
Alexander Pope on the actress Mrs. Oldfield, who died in 1730:
“Odious! in woollen! ‘t would a saint provoke,”
Were the last words that poor Narcissa spoke.
“No, let a charming chintz, and Brussels lace,
Wrap my cold limbs, and shade my lifeless face.”
(Pope 1754)
Something to say? Get in touch
Tags
Tags are assigned inclusively on the basis of an entry’s original text and any comment. You may find this confusing if you only read an entry excerpt.
- Briercliffe (1) W/G ·
- Burnley (4) W/G ·
- Burying in Woollen Acts (1) W/G ·
- Charles II (1630-85) (26), King of Scotland 1649-51, King of England, Scotland and Ireland from the 1660 Restoration until his death W/G ·
- Funeral (25) W/G ·
- Kersey (cloth) (2) W/G ·
- Lancashire (35) W/G ·
- Linen (3) W/G ·
- Oldfield, Anne (1683-1730) (1), one of the best-paid actresses of her time W/G ·
- Parliament of England (9) W/G ·
- Plague (disease) (2) W/G ·
- Pope, Alexander (1688-1744) (4), poet, translator, and satirist of the Augustan period, finest poet of the early 18th century W/G ·
- Protectionism (6) W/G ·
- Quakers Act 1695 (1) W/G ·
- Quakers (14) W/G ·
- Religious intolerance (6) W/G ·
- Testimony of integrity (1) W/G ·
- Textile manufacturing (60) W/G ·
- William III (9) W/G ·
- Wool (28) W/G ·
- Woollen (21) W/G ·
Comment
Comment
The 1666 Act was generally disregarded – burial in linen has a long tradition – and in 1678 more stringent legislation was passed, obliging the clergy to confirm in the registers that an affidavit had been made to the effect that the body was wrapped in woollen only. For burial in linen there was a penalty of £5, half of which went to the informer and half to the poor of the parish. For the moneyed, this became viewed as a tax to be paid rather than a law to be obeyed, and would be halved by the nomination of an informer from the family circle. Enforcement had ended well before the statues were repealed in 1814. The three acts in question are 18 & 19 Cha. II c. 4 (1666), 30 Cha. II c. 3 (1678) and 32 Cha. II c. 1 (1680).
The affidavit requirement made this, where enforced, a tax on Quakers until passage under William of Orange of the Quakers Act 1695, which allowed Quakers to substitute an affirmation where the law previously required an oath. An anecdote. John Ecroyd buried his young son James in his orchard at Briercliffe, near Burnley, on 4 June 1683:
In the latter end of the 6th month 1683, Richard Whitchelqh, John Hargreaves, and Lawrence Thornber, wardens, and Richard Swaine, overseer, took from [me] John Ecroyd of Briercliff, a kersey piece and a stone of wool, worth £2 10s. (beside other goods returned again) by warrant from Thomas Bredwell called Justice, upon information of Robert Hartley of Burnley called curate, for not making certificate upon oath of my child being buried in woollen. Though it was told the said Thomas Bredwell, that information was given to one called a minister, called James Hargreaves, unto whom, by right it did belong to receive the same; and also that my child was buried in woollen. Yet being nothing would satisfy but the oath, and I could in conscience ask none to do it (or swear for me) distress was made as above. John Ecroyd (Friend 1835).
I wish I had (also) found an appropriate first-person excerpt from Yorkshire.
Alexander Pope on the actress Mrs. Oldfield, who died in 1730:
“Odious! in woollen! ‘t would a saint provoke,”
Were the last words that poor Narcissa spoke.
“No, let a charming chintz, and Brussels lace,
Wrap my cold limbs, and shade my lifeless face.”
(Pope 1754)
Something to say? Get in touch
Similar
Comment
Comment
There is talk of a modest revival, though no decision yet on who is to play the saint.
Cudworth then reflects on 1825 vs the late 1880s and Bradford’s progress:
Taking the general state of the trade no further back than the Bishop Blaize celebration of 1825, and what a contrast now to what it was then. Then a single packhorse was often enough to bear away the goods to their destination; now scores of great iron horses are pressed into the service, and the cry is still for more power. Then, an upper loft or spare bedroom was enough for all the power the manufacturer needed; now Bradford itself is not enough, but a population as large as its own lying outside is pressed into the service, while there are factories the work-people employed at which would, in the early days of the worsted trade, have peopled all Bradford, the worth of which would have bought up the manor, manor house, castle, and all its privileges, twenty times over. Then, an occasional journey on foot to some of the towns and villages with which the man dealt was sufficient, but now the telegraph will bear his messages to all parts of the globe in “less than no time.” The business which was then done in the Piece Hall, is now largely exceeded by that of individual firms occupying warehouses of quite a palatial character, and in many retail shops, especially in the drapery trade, more is now done in a day than the collective business of former times amounted to. The conveniences for doing business now-a-days are certainly not comparable to the time when there used to be two stalls at the bottom of Westgate for the sale of leather breeches. There was also a passage close by, and after the customer had selected a pair as near his size as he could guess, he would retire to the passage to try them on to make certain!
John Hudleston apparently diarised this (Hudleston 1981) – more reading, more permissions.
Which king and queen are portrayed in the procession? Caroline had died four years before.
Something to say? Get in touch
Search
Subscribe/buy
Donate
Music & books
Place-People-Play: Childcare (and the Kazookestra) on the Headingley/Weetwood borders next to Meanwood Park.
Music from and about Yorkshire by Leeds's Singing Organ-Grinder.
RSS feed
Bluesky
Extwitter