The History of Trade Unionism: (Revised edition, extended to 1920)Webb, Sidney
History
The History of Trade Unionism: (Revised edition, extended to 1920)
Webb, Sidney
Labor unions -- Great Britain -- History
Notwithstanding these differences between various classes of workers,
the growing sense of solidarity among the whole body of wage-earners
rises into special prominence during this period of tyranny and
repression. The trades in which it was usual for men to tramp from
place to place in search of employment had long possessed, as we have
seen, some kind of loose federal organisation extending throughout
the country. In spite of the law of 1797 forbidding the existence
of “corresponding societies,” the various federal organisations of
Curriers, Hatters, Calico-printers, Woolcombers, Woolstaplers, and
other handicraftsmen kept up constant correspondence on trade matters,
and raised money for common trade purposes. In some cases there existed
an elaborate national organisation, with geographical districts
and annual delegate meetings; like that of the Calico-printers who
were arrested by the Bolton constables in 1818. The rules of the
Papermakers,[158] which certainly date from 1803, provide for the
division of England into five districts, with detailed arrangements
for representation and collective action. This national organisation
was, notwithstanding repressive laws, occasionally very effective. We
need cite only one instance, furnished by the Liverpool Ropemakers in
1823. When a certain firm attempted to put labourers to the work, the
local society of ropespinners informed it that this was “contrary to
the regulations of the trade,” and withdrew all their members. The
employers, failing to get men in Liverpool, sent to Hull and Newcastle,
but found that the Ropespinners’ Society had already apprised the local
trade clubs at those towns. The firm then imported “blacklegs” from
Glasgow, who were met on arrival by the local unionists, inveigled
to a “trade club-house,” and alternately threatened and cajoled out
of their engagements. Finally the head of the firm went to London to
purchase yarn; but the London workmen, finding that the yarn was for
a “struck shop,” refused to complete the order. The last resource of
the employers was an indictment at the Sessions for combination, but a
Liverpool jury, in the teeth of the evidence and the judge’s summing
up, gave a verdict of acquittal.[159]
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account