CHAP. C.

DBTICA'CEJE. Afo'llUS.

1353

commenced in the Crimea , by the planting of all the best varieties of M. albain the government garden at Odessa; where, according to M. Descemet {Tab.Hist., &c., p. 55.), they succeed perfectly. In Spain , the culture of silk wasintroduced, as we have already seen, by the Arabs ; and it is universallyallowed to have been in a highly flourishing state in the fifteenth century; but ithas declined ever since; and at the present day, as Capt. S. E. Cook informsus, it is one of the most neglected branches of agriculture in Spain ; beingalmost confined “to Valencia, Catalonia , Murcia , and a part of Grenada .”

(Sketches in Spain , &c., vol. ii. p. 38.) In Egypt , the culture of silk wasintroduced some years since, by the Pajha Ibrahim, and it is in a prosperousstate. M. a. multicaulis is also mentioned among the trees that have beenplanted in the government gardens at Algiers . (Seep. 178.)

The first record of silk in Britain is of a present sent by Charlemagne toOffa, king of Mercia , in 780, consisting of a belt and two silken vests. Silk ismentioned in a chronicle of the date of 1286, in which we are told that someladies wore silk mantles at a festival at Kenilworth about that period; and,by other records, we find that silk was worn by the English clergy in 1534.Henry VIII . had the first pair of silk stockings that were ever seen inEngland sent to him from Spain ; and Edward VI. had “ a pair of longsilk hose,” from the same country, presented to him by Sir Thomas Gresham (who built the Royal Exchange); “ a present which was thought muchof.” ( Howell’s Hist, of the World , iii. p. 222.) These stockings were cutout of a piece of silk, and sewed together, like the cloth hose that wereworn previously; the first knit silk stockings were worn in England byQueen Elizabeth. Silk manufactures were introduced into England in thefifteenth century; but they do not appear to have mademuch progress “ till theage of Elizabeth; the tranquillity of whose long reign, and the influx of theFlemings, occasioned by the disturbances in the Low Countries, gave a powerfulstimulus to the manufacturers of England.” (ibf‘ Culloch.') In 1609, James I. ,probably in imitation of Henry IV. , passed his famous edict for introducingthe culture of the silkworm into Britain (see p. 1344.); and from theIssues of the Exchequer, &c., of his reign, lately published, it appears that heplanted largely himself. One of the entries in this curious work is an order,dated Dec. 5. 1608, directing the payment to “ Master William Stallenge ”of the “ sum of 935/., for the charge of four acres of land, taken in for HisMajesty’s use, near to his palace of Westminster, for the planting of mulberrytrees; together with the charge of walling, levelling, and planting thereofwith mulberry trees,” &c. By another entry, we find that the attempt to rearsilkworms was not hastily abandoned; as it contains an order, dated January23. 1618, nine years after the preceding one, for 50/. to be paid the keeperof His Majesty’s house and gardens at Theobald’s, “ for timber-board, glass,and other materials, together with workmanship, for making a place for HisMajesty’s silkworms, and for making provision of mulberry leaves for them,”Hartlib, in his Legacy, &c., printed in 1652, quotes some passages fromBoneil on Mulberries , a work, printed in 1609; and among others a letter fromKing James to his lords lieutenants, recommending the planting^of mulberrytrees, and offering them at 2 farthings each. (See Legacy, &c., ed. 2., p. 59.)Though this attempt to rear silkworms in England proved unsuccessful, themanufacture of the raw material, supplied by other countries, was extraordinarilynourishing. The silk-throwsters (twisters) of the metropolis were unitedmto a fellowship in 1562; and were incorporated in 1629. Though retardedby the civil wars in the time of Charles I. and the commonwealth, the manu-facture continued gradually to advance; and so flourishing had it become,that it is stated in a preamble to a statute passed in 1666 (13 & 14 Chas. 2.?• 15.), that there were at that time no fewer than 40,000 individuals engagedV* {M‘Culloch.') A considerable stimulus was given to the Eng­ lish

silk manufacture by the revocation of the Edict of Nantes in 1685; whenabove 50,000 French artisans took refuge in England. At this period, theconsumption of silk goods was so great in England, that, besides the quantity