or, as it is phrased, "a balance gained this year to the nation " of 346,283l. 17s. 10d. In 1622, according to another account which has been preserved, the total amount of exportations, including therein the custom at 5 per cent, on such goods as paid poundage, the imposts on bays, tin, lead, and pewter, and the merchants' profit of 15 per cent., together with freight and petty charges, was 2,320,436l. 12s. 10d.; while the total value of the imports, including 91,059l. 11s. 7d. of customs dues, and 100,000l. for line run-goods, &c., was 2,619.315l.[1] This state of matters, according to the universally prevalent notion of the time, indicated a balance lost to the country that year by its foreign commerce of 298,878l. 7s. 2d. But, in truth, a comparison of the two accounts, supposing them to be tolerably correct, only proves that the trade of the country, on the whole, had rather increased than diminished in the course of the nine years which they embrace. It appears that in 1613 the exports and imports, taken together, amounted in value to 4,628,586l.; and in 1622 to 4,939,751l. The highest of these sums may be about the twentieth part of the united value of our present exports and imports.
The great staple of the kingdom still continued to be the trade in wool and in woollen cloths. But, although the English wool was finer, and held in higher estimation than that of any other country, the imperfect manner in which the processes of dressing and dyeing the cloth were performed had long been matter of regret with all who took an interest in the prosperity of our commerce and manufactures. We have already noticed Raleigh's representations upon that subject. At length an effort was made to remedy the evil, which, if strong measures were always the most successful in such cases, could hardly have failed to accomplish its professed purpose. In 1608 James issued a proclamation absoutely prohibiting any undyed cloths to be sent beyond seas even by the Company of Merchant Adventurers,
- ↑ Circle of Commerce, by Edward Misselden. Esq., 1623, p. 121.
