The Industrial Revolution

Bibliographic data

Monograph

Identifikator:: 1027928145

URN:: urn:nbn:de:zbw-retromon-159926

Document type:: Monograph

Author:: Cunningham, William http://d-nb.info/gnd/128907487

Title:: The Industrial Revolution

Place of publication:: Cambridge

Publisher:: The University Press

Year of publication:: 1922

Scope:: xxii S., S. 404-886

Digitisation:: 2021

Collection:: Economics Books

Usage license:: Get license information via the feedback formular.

LAISSEZ FAIRE i0 engage in a strike had ceased to be in itself criminal; the weapon which the operatives thus secured was one which might be used very unwisely and foolishly, but it was something to have a weapon, and to be able to try to enforce their own side hemen in trade disputes. In 1824 the operatives had been fairly suc- perc de" cessful in bringing pressure to bear! on their employers; but ee es OWing to the depressed state of trade, the conditions in the Bradford following years were less favourable, and the unions failed in their attempts to stop the reduction of wages. The most severe contest occurred in the wool-combing trade at Bradford; a strike was organised by a large union among the hands, which received much support from sympathisers in other towns. The committee were able to pay as much as £800 or £900? a week bo the men on strike, and the operatives succeeded to a very large extent in boarding out their children during the summer months; the men appeared to be holding well together, while shere were some dissensions among the masters, who had entered on an aggressive policy and were endeavouring to break up the union altogether. The Leeds wool-combers joined those of Bradford in their strike ; but, after standing out for twenty-two weeks, the men were forced to give in on every point, and returned to work at the wages which they had been receiving five months before ; this, according to the contention of the masters, was the highest rate that the trade would bear. The loss in wages amounted to £40,000, though something like half this sum had been received in the form of subscrip- of the Board of Directors for the body of coal-miners,’ stating that, unless certain men were discharged, the miners would strike. Held to be an illegal combination. See Leeds Mercury, May 24, 1834) Sometimes the ‘molestation or obstruction’ prohibited in the Act of 1825 was made to include the mere ntimation of the men’s intention to strike against the employment of non- 1nionists. In a remarkable case at Wolverhampton in August, 1835, four potters were imprisoned for intimidation, solely upon evidence by the employers that they nad ‘advanced their prices in consequence of the interference of the defendants who acted as plenipotentiaries for the men,’ without, as was admitted, the use of sven the mildest threat. (7%mes, August 22, 1835.) Picketing, even of the most peaceful kind, was frequently severely punished under this head, as four South- wark shoemakers found, in 1832, to their cost. (Poor Man's Guardian, September 20, 1832.) More generally the men on strike were proceeded against under the laws relating to masters and servants, as in the case of seventeen tanners at Bermondsey in February 1834, who were sentenced to imprisonment for the offence of leaving their work unfinished. (ZT'¢mes. February 27. 1834)” Webh, Trade Unionism, pp. 127-8. 1 Webb, Trade Unionism, p. 99. } Burnley. Wool and Wool-combing, 169.

Access restriction

Copyright

fullscreen: The Industrial Revolution

Monograph

Table of contents

Download

Monograph

This page

Image fragment

Citation links

Citation recommendation