ll IN 704579 3 =—=S>=o 9 ll 1761 II) THE VICTORIA HISTORY OF THE COUNTIES OF ENGLAND — SS A HISTORY OF LEICESTERSHIRE VOLUME III Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2014 htips://archive.org/details/victoriahistoryO3pageuoft uojuarT “JA “) 7) ANO[OI-42ZDAL D MOLY YWALSAIIAT LV IVNV() NOIN/() GNVUL) AHL NO SdIwOLOVY ATC THE VICTORIA HISTORY OF THE COUNTIES OF ENGLAND EDITED BY R. B. PUGH, M.A., F.S.A. THE UNIVERSITY OF LONDON INSTITUTE OF HISTORICAL RESEARCH A HISTORY OF THE COUNTY OF LEICESTER EDITED BY W. G. HOSKINS, M.A., PH.D. AND R. A. MCKINLEY, M.A. VOLUME Ill PUBLISHED FOR THE INSTITUTE OF HISTORICAL RESEARCH BY THE OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS AMEN HOUSE, LONDON 1955 Oxford University Press, Amen House, London, E.C. 4 GLASGOW NEW YORK TORONTO MELBOURNE WELLINGTON BOMBAY CALCUTTA MADRAS KARACHI CAPE TOWN IBADAN Geoffrey Cumberlege, Publisher to the University PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN INSCRIBED TO THE MEMORY OF HER LATE MAJESTY QUEEN VICTORIA WHO GRACIOUSLY GAVE THE TITLE TO AND ACCEPTED THE DEDICATION OF THIS HISTORY CONTENTS OF Dedication Contents List of Illustrations List of Maps Editorial Note Members of Committee . Classes of Public Records used Note on abbreviations Industries Introduction Hosiery VOLUME THREE By R. A. McKintey, M.A. By L. A. Parker, B.Sc., Pu.D. Appendix: Evidence for Bramewor!: Keniceers, oo -Frames, Pepe and Manu- facturers in the County of Leicester Footwear . Engineering and Metal Worline Mining : : Quarrying Bell-Founding Appendix I. Leicester Bell-F bunders Appendix II. Leicestershire Bells Banking Roads By Ww. G. Hesene M.A, Pu D. By P. Russet, F.S.A. By R. A. McKintey, M.A. By R. A. McKintey, M.A. By E. Morris By R.A. McKintey, M.A. By P. Russet, F.S.A. Appendix I: The Poncipal Read Blige: of Leicestershire _ Appendix II: A Schedule of Turnpike Roads in Leicestershire Canals Railways Population By A. T. Patterson, M.A. By Proressor J. Simmons, M.A. By C. T. Smita, M.A. Table I: Domesday: Recorded Popalacons excluding landholders Table II: 1377 Poll Tax Table III: Diocesan Population Resa: I <6 3 Table IV: Lider Cleri, 1603: Communicants and Recusants Table V: Hearth Tax, Michaelmas 1670 . Table VI: Ecclesiastical Census, 1676 Table VII: Parish Register Statistics, 1700-1800 Table VIII: Rickman’s Estimates of Population . Table of Population 1801-1951 Leicestershire Artists Education Charity Schools . By Susan M. G. Reynotps, M.A. By A. C. SewrTer, B.Sc., M.A. . By R. A. McKintey, M.A. Elementary Education in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries Adult and Further Education By R.A. McKintzy, M.A... By Professor A. J. Allaway, M.A. ix PAGE Vil 108 129 156 163 166 168 170 173 175 175 176 218 243 247 252 CONTENTS OF VOLUME THREE Sport Hunting . Cricket ; Rugby Football . Association Football Index to Volumes I-III . Corrigenda to Volume II By C. D. B. Etuis, C.B.E., M.C., M.A., F.S.A., and the late Major T. G. F. Pacer, D.L. . By E. E. Snow By E. E. Snow By E. E. Snow By Janet D. Martin, B.A M.B.E., M.A. .and L. H. Irvine, PAGE 269 282 286 288 291 338 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS The frontispiece, the plate facing page 241 and the photographs facing page 111 are reproduced by courtesy of the Leicester Museums and Art Gallery Committee. The originals of the first two are in the Leicester Art Gallery. ‘The photographs facing pages 14 and 110 are reproduced by courtesy of the Leicester Mercury and the Leicester Evening Mail respectively. The photographs facing pages 30, 31 and 58 were taken by Mr. F. L. Attenborough, and are reproduced by his permission. ‘The plates facing page 240 are reproduced by courtesy of Mr. V. R. Pochin, the owner of the originals now at Barkby Hall. Old factories on the Grand Union Canal at Leicester, from a water-colour by G. M. Fenton, — . : : 5 < : : : : : : : Frontispiece Three stocking frames ; : ; ; : : ; : : . facing page 14 Steel Works at Asfordby Py » ao The South Leicestershire Colliery ; ; ; ; ; ; ef He ot A fireclay quarry at Croft . : ; : : ; : 3 ‘ . Ss Pe 31 Sewstern Lane (‘The Drift) : : . , é ; : 2 35 a 58 The Gartree Road near Shangton : : P : : ‘ i : 5 s5 58 Locks on the Grand Union Canal at Foxton . ‘ ‘ : : : 5 LO East Norton Viaduct under construction : ‘ 5 3 A ; ; 3 TE East Norton Tunnel under construction ; , : ; : : 4 5 wren igang Mrs. George Pochin, from the oil-painting by M. W. Peters ; 5 : ¢ es » WO William Pochin, from the oil-painting by L. F. Abbott 5 ; : : The Quorn at Quenby, from the oil-painting by John Ferneley_ . : : : Sod Reh! x1 LIST OF MAPS The maps illustrating the chapter on Population were drawn by Mr. C. T. Smith. That on page 128 is based upon the published maps of the Geological Survey of Great Britain by permission of the Director and of the Controller of H.M. Stationery Office, Crown copyright reserved. All the other maps were drawn by Mr. T. Garfield. PAGE Distribution of framework knitters, 1700-1800 ; ‘ ; - : , ; é 4 Distribution of framework knitters, 1801-51 . < ; : 6 Distribution of bag-hosiers and hosiery manufacturers, 18 of I-1900, sand ge hotiery rine shot HAs) allel Prehistoric trackways : : ; ; : : : : : ; 2 © Saxon, Danish and medieval roads : : ‘ A : : : : : o OF Approaches to Leicester from the south 5 : : ; ; : ; : a7 Approaches to Leicester from the north and east. : : ; : : ; 7 Principal turnpike roads. : . : : 3 ; . ‘ : ; an 80, The railways of Leicestershire. s : : : ‘ : : : : Se 3s Population: Fig. 1. Geology (Drift) . . ; 5 ‘ ‘ : : = 2s Population: Fig. 2. Domesday: Recorded Popelaten : : : ‘ : ‘ Esa Population: Fig. 3. 1334: Tax Assessment . ; : : : : ‘ : . 134 Population: Fig. 4. 1377 Poll Tax: Taxpayers : F : : ; : ‘ 5 QE Population: Fig. 5. 1563: Recorded Families : : : ‘ i ; 5 eS Population: Fig. 6. 1670 Hearth Tax: Recorded Hionseholds : : 3 ‘ : a WY Population: Fig. 7. 1801: Density : : : ‘ : ‘ ; : : a aris Population: Fig. 8. 1851: Density : 6 5 , : : é : ; SZ Population: Fig. 9. 1939: Density : : : A ‘ : ‘ ‘ : Sess Xill EDITORIAL NOTE THE system on which this volume has been compiled and edited is the same as that described in the editorial note to the second volume of the Victoria History of Leicestershire. ‘The same group of Leicestershire patrons, under the distinguished chairmanship of Sir Robert Martin, have continued their generous grants for the support of a local editor, and the University of London has watched over the whole enterprise and published the results. Thus the merits of a partnership between the University and a local com- mittee are further demonstrated. The volume, like its predecessor, was planned by Dr. W. G. Hoskins, while still Reader in English Local History at University College, Leicester, and he was able to edit parts of it before his departure for Oxford. His work was completed by Mr. R. A. McKinley. Dr. Hoskins and Mr. McKinley may thus be looked upon in their several ways as joint local editors, though the inception of the scheme is the entire responsibility of the former. Like those in Volume II the present set of articles mainly ignores the City of Leicester which will form the subject of a separate volume; where they do not, the fact is mentioned in text or footnote. ‘The group of articles on education does not extend to the history of secondary schools, which, like primary schools, are reserved for treatment in the topographical volumes. This is a departure from the normal scheme of the History. Once again sincere thanks are due to Professor Jack Simmons, to Dr. L. A. Parker, the Leicestershire County Archivist, and to Mrs. A. M. Wood- _ cock, formerly Archivist to Leicester City, for services of many different kinds. Mention must also be made of the kindness of Mr. A. Wright, keeper of the Leicestershire history collection in the Leicester City Reference Library. Finally, tribute must be paid to a number of Leicestershire busi- ness houses and the members of their staffs, who most courteously supplied information which has been incorporated in the articles on industries and communications. R. B. PUGH LEIC. III XV c ; a) aie os LEICESTERSHIRE VICTORIA COUNTY HISTORY COMMITTEE Where not otherwise stated members have served on the Committee from 1948 until the present time. AupERMAN Lrt.-Cot. Sir Ropertr E. Martin, c.M.c., T.D., D.L. (Chairman) AuperMan Major 'T. G. F. Pacer, p.. (died 1952) Councitior Mrs. M. E. Keay, B.£.M. (from 1952) CounciLior Captain W. G. Coates Tue Revp. D. A. Apams Representing Leicester County Council A.perMan C. R. KEENE, c.B.E. Councittor P. G. Hucuts (resigned 1949) Councitior A. H. W. Kimperuin (1949-54) Councitior N. L. Jackson (from 1954) Representing the City of Leicester GD. B. Hrs, EsQ., c.B.£., M.c. : j . Representing the Leicestershire Archaeological Society J. Miznz, Esg. é ‘ ‘ : . Representing the Leicester Literary and Philosophical Society S. H. Russexz, Esq. : : : : . Representing Leicester and County Chamber of Commerce Dr. Anne K. B. Evans (from 1950) : A ee Proressor J. SIMMONs Representing University College, Leiceste B. Extiott, Esq. (resigned 1952) Representing the Leicester Branch of the Historical P. A. Srevens, Eso. Association Bishop of Leicester (resigned 1953) Tue Rr. Revp. Dr. R. R. WittiaMs, v.p., Bishop of Tue Rr. Revo. Dr. G. Vernon Situ, M.c., formerly |e the Diocese of Leicester Leicester A. Taytor Mine, Esq. (resigned 1950) Representing the Central Committee of the Victoria R. B. Pucu, Esq. (from 1950) County History Co-opted Members Sir Wixi1aM BrockINcTON, C.B.E. Dr. J. H. PLums L. H. Irvine, Eso., M.3.£. H. P. R. Finzerc, Esa. (Co-opted 1952) Proressor A. Hamittron THOMPSON, C.B.E., F.B.A. Dr. W. G. Hoskins (Co-opted 1953) (died 1952) ID, (es ale AP ioned Dr, IL AN ae (resigned 1952) Honorary Secretary S. B. Borvott, Esq. Honorary ‘Treasurer XVil Minot vyOrR- CLASSES OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS cap IN EHIS: VOLUME, WITH THEIR CLASS NUMBERS Chancery C.2 Proceedings, Series I C. 211 Petty Bag Office, Commissions and Inquisitions of Lunacy Exchequer E. 134 Depositions taken by Commission E. 179 Subsidy Rolls, &c. E. 317 Parliamentary Surveys. Home Office H.O. 41 Disturbances, Entry Books H.O. 52 Correspondence, Counties State Paper Office S.P. 14 State Papers, Domestic, Jas. I x1x «a if siete ’ sea e) NOTE ON ABBREVIATIONS Among the abbreviations and short titles used the following may require elucidation Arch. Ful. Assoc. Arch. Soc. Rep. and Papers Guy. Curtis, Topog. Hist. Leics. Farnham, Leics. Notes Fox-Strangways, Geo/. Leics. 8. Derbys. Coalfield Gent. Mag. L.R.O. Leic. and Nott. Ful. Leic. Boro. Rec. Leic. Chron. Leic. City Mun. Room Leic. City Ref. Libr. Leic. Fal. Leic. Town Hall Rec. Leic. and Rut. Mag. Leland, Jziz. Nichols, Leics. Rlwy. Mag. T.LA.S. White, Dir. Leics. (1846) Archaeological Fournal. Associated Archaeological and Architectural Societies’ Reports and Papers. Commons Fournals. J. Curtis, Topographical History of the County of Leicester. G. F. Farnham, Leicestershire Medieval Village Notes (6 vols., 1929-33; priv. print., Leicester). C. Fox-Strangways, The Geology of the Leicestershire and South Derbyshire Coalfield (Geological Survey of Great Britain, H.M.S.O., 1907). Gentleman's Magazine. Leicestershire Record Office. Leicester and Nottingham Fournal. Records of the Borough of Leicester (ed. Mary Bateson and Helen Stocks, 4 vols., 1899-1923). Leicester Chronicle. Leicester City Muniment Room, in Leicester Museum. Leicester City Reference Library, Bishop Street, the local collection. Leicester Fournal. Leicester City Records, in the Town Hall. Leicester and Rutland Magazine. J. Leland, Ltinerary (ed. L.'Toulmin Smith, 11 parts in § vols., rg06—10). J. Nichols, Te History and Antiquities of the County of Leicester (4 vols. in 8, 1795-1811). Railway Magazine. Transactions of the Leicestershire Archaeological Society. W. White, History, Gazetteer and Directory of Leicestershire, with Rutland (1846, &c.). XX1 INDUSTRIES INTRODUCTION HE greatest concentration of industry in Leicestershire is in the city of Leicester, which is by far the largest town in the county.! Leicester itself, however, will be dealt with in a later volume, and its industries will not in general be considered here, or in the articles on the hosiery and footwear industries which follow.2, Apart from Leicester the county does not contain any large industrial town, and its industries have always been scattered amongst villages and small towns. The earliest industries to develop in Leicestershire were mining and quarry- ing. Coal-mining was already being carried on in the west of the county in the late 13th century, and quarrying, which was practised to some extent in the Roman period, had been revived by 1300. Coal-mining in Leicestershire is confined to a relatively small area; the Leicestershire coalfield has never been one of the largest in Britain, and although there is one town of some size? which Owes its existence entirely to coal-mining, and which did not exist before the 19th century, no large industrial towns have grown up in the mining area. Quarrying, too, has been largely confined to the part of Leicestershire lying west of the Soar valley, though in the last 80 years the ironstone workings in the north-east of the county have become important. The other chief industries of Leicestershire are of much more recent growth than mining and quarrying. The hosiery industry was not established in the county until the 17th century, and did not become important until the 18th. Until after 1850 the industry was conducted on the domestic system, and was carried on in many scattered villages, mostly in the western half of the county. While the growth of mining and quarrying in certain areas was directly due to the existence there of minerals, it is not easy to explain why Leicestershire became the chief centre of hosiery manufacture in England. ‘The progress of inclosure during the 18th century may, by depriving some agricultural workers of their normal employment, have helped to make labour available locally for industry, but Leicestershire does not seem to have possessed any natural advan- tages which make it especially suitable as the home of the hosiery industry. Nevertheless for many years hosiery manufacture in England has been chiefly carried on in Leicestershire, and to a less extent in the adjacent counties of Nottingham and Derby. When in the middle of the 19th century hosiery manufacture was beginning to be concentrated in factories, it was to some extent replaced as a domestic industry in west Leicestershire by the making of boots and shoes. The growth of the footwear industry in the county’s villages was due to the need for the footwear factories, established in Leicester itself, to find additional labour for the carrying out of certain processes. 1 Where no references are given in the introduction, see articles on individual industries for the facts on which statements are based. 2 Thatis, Leicestershire must in the present context be considered as the county less the city of Leicester. 3 Coalville. LEICS. III I % A HISTORY OF LEICESTERSHIRE By the end of the rgth century the manufacture of hosiery and footwear was very largely conducted in factories. The disappearance of the domestic system left many Leicestershire villages without any industry at all. The hosiery and footwear factories were mostly built in the towns of Loughborough and Hinckley, and in certain of the larger villages, such as, for example, Earl Shilton and Shepshed.* As other industries developed, their factories tended to be built in the small towns of the county rather than in the villages. The growth of the engineering industry at Loughborough is a notable example. The general result of these developments has been that most Leicestershire villages are today without industries. The situation which is to be found in, for example, much of the West Riding of Yorkshire, where many villages contain a few small factories, does not exist in Leicestershire; most of the villages, especially in the east of the county, are purely agricultural and have conse- quently remained small. Some villages do possess important industrial plants; in the eastern half of the county, for example, there is a large iron-works at Asfordby, while in the west there are a number of larger villages each possessing several factories. But such cases are exceptional. On the other hand the towns - of the county, though none of them is very large,’ have acquired a variety of industries. Hinckley and Loughborough, which have for long been manu- facturing towns, have become increasingly important in recent years, and fac- tories have been established in the old-established market-towns of Melton Mowbray, Market Harborough, and Lutterworth. It may be said in general terms that Leicestershire’s industries, with the important exceptions of mining and quarrying, are to be found chiefly in the towns, and that the western half of the county is still more important industrially than the eastern, as has been the case for many years.° 4 Earl Shilton and Shepshed both possess hosiery and footwear factories: Ke//y’s Dir. of Leics. and Rut. (1936), 78, 937- 5 In 1931 the population of Loughborough, the largest town in Leics. after Leic. itself, was 27,777: ibid. 862. 6 On the distribution of population in Leics., see below, p. 153; and see map showing distribution of human settlements in R. M. Auty, ‘Leics.’ in Land of Britain (pt. 57), ed. L. D. Stamp, 259. HOSIERY The making of knitted-wear or hosiery is a post-medieval industry. It takes its origin from James Lee soon sold up his London frames, and, having returned to his native county, introduced the invention of the stocking- or knitting-frame by William Lee of Calverton (Notts.) in 1589. After failing to obtain a patent for his invention from Elizabeth I, Lee tried his fortunes in France but he died in Paris in 1610 without attaining much success. His brother, James Lee, brought back eight frames to England and set them up in London, which became the first centre of the trade of framework-knitting in the country. 1 For the invention of the stocking-frame by Wm. Lee and the attempts by him and his brother James to establish the trade in Engl. and France, see W. Felkin, Hist. Machine-Wrought Hosiery and Lace Manufactures (1867), 23-58, and F. A. Wells, Brit. Hosiery Trade: Hist. and Organization, 22-27. 2 'This is the traditional date for the introduction of the stocking-frame into Leics. See Nichols, Leics. iv, 679; A. J. Pickering, Cradle and Home of the Hosiery the trade to Nottingham with the help of Aston, a former apprentice of his brother William. From Nottingham the trade spread to Derbyshire and Leicestershire and henceforth the midlands be- came and still remain the principal seat of the hosiery industry. Knitting-frames were first set up in Leicester- shire by William Iliffe at Hinckley about 1640.2 From time to time attempts have been made to Trade, 1. The inv. filed with the early Probate Rec. for the Archdeaconry of Leic. have been sampled for various years between 1649-94 for evidence of stocking- frames. The earliest ref. to a stocking-frame which has been found occurs in the inv. of Geo. Hogsonn of Dixley (Dishley) Mill, dated 4 Feb. 1660. Hogsonn, a silk-stocking weaver, possessed a frame and ‘im- plement thereto belonging’ which were valued at P25. INDUSTRIES calculate the number of frames in the country. In 1669 there were about 50 frames in Leicester- shire compared with 100 in Nottinghamshire and 400 in London.3 Almost a century later, in 1753, Leicester possessed 1,000 frames, Nottingham 1,500, Derby 200, London 1,000, and scattered among the villages in the midland counties there were 7,300. The total number for England was now 13,200 compared with 650 in 1669.4 Calcu- lations made in the first half of the 19th century are more informative, for they give us evidence of the villages concerned as well as the principal towns. According to Blackner there were in 1812 4,700 frames in Derby and Derbyshire, 9,285 in Nottingham and Nottinghamshire, and 11,183 in Leicester and Leicestershire, of which 1,600 were within the borough (which is treated in a subsequent volume) and 9,583 scattered amongst 99 different villages in the county... At London’ there were at this time under 150 frames. Thirty years later Felkin calculated that there were 6,447 frames in Derbyshire, 16,382 in Notting- hamshire, and 20,311 in Leicestershire, of which 4,140 were in Leicester borough and 1,750 in Hinckley.® From the above figures it is clear that not only had London ceased to be an important centre of the industry by the middle of the 19th century but that even at the end of the 18th century it was eclipsed by the midland counties, amongst which Leicestershire (including Leicester) held the first place. These statistics, however, do not give a com- plete picture of the extent to which the industry had spread in Leicestershire. Felkin took his census of the knitting-frames in 1844, listing 86 places outside the borough of Leicester as possess- ing frames. Next year evidence was taken before Richard M. Muggeridge, who had been appointed commissioner to report on the state of the frame- work-knitters. Yet in Muggeridge’s report figures are given for the number of frames in six villages which are omitted from Felkin’s return and five of those villages were considerable seats of the manufacture.? Blackner quotes 9§ villages in the county as possessing frames in 1812 but he omits six places, which appear not only in Felkin’s census but are also known to have possessed frame- work-knitters in the 18th century and, therefore, it may reasonably be inferred, were engaged in the industry when Blackner’s list was compiled.8 Finally, there were framework-knitters in the 18th century in at least twenty-three other villages or hamlets not mentioned by Blackner.° 3 Rep. on Condition of Framework Knitters, [609] Pp. 15, H.C. (1845), xv. 4 Ibid. 15. 5 J. Blackner, Hist. Nott. 239-40. ‘The statistics used by Blackner were assembled in 1812 by an un- named person who spent several years collecting them. The frames were counted by people going from house to house. 6 Felkin, Hosiery and Lace Mftures. 465-6. In all, evidence has been found for framework- knitting in 118 villages and hamlets of the county at the turn of the 18th century compared with ninety-three village centres in the middle of the 19th. Allowing for any defects in the statistics this fall reflects a contraction in the rural industry. Its peak was reached at the close of the Napoleonic Wars. By the middle of the 19th century, as we shall see later, the withdrawal of the industry from the village centres had already begun; a pro- cess which continued slowly over the succeeding 50 or 60 years. ‘The industry was largely confined to that area of the county which lies west of a line drawn from Market Harborough through Leicester to Lough- borough (see Map). In the eastern half of the county framework-knitting on a small scale was carried on in only a few scattered villages; even in a market-centre like Melton Mowbray the in- dustry was negligible, but of the 93 known centres of the trade in the mid-1gth century, for which we have the numbers of the frames engaged, 6 pos- sessed over 500. Of these, Broughton Astley, Hinckley, and Shepshed had over 1,000; whilst at Loughborough, Earl Shilton, and Wigston Magna there were between 500 and 1,000. In 37 other villages the number of frames varied between 100 and 500 but 50 had under 100 frames apiece. Geographically the rural centres fall into fairly well-defined groups. The Soar valley especially was thickly studded with such centres, dominated by Loughborough, Barrow upon Soar, Sileby, Mountsorrel, and Thurmaston. In the north- west there was a belt of framework-knitting vil- lages extending from Shepshed through Hathern and Long Whatton to Castle Donington. The concentration of frames was not quite so heavy in the area between Whitwick and Ashby de la Zouch; nor in the area occupied by Anstey, Glen- field, Ratby, and Desford. South-west of Leicester there were two principal groups; first, Enderby, Narborough, Whetstone, Cosby, Blaby, Countes- thorpe, and Broughton Astley, and secondly, Hinckley, Stoke Golding, Earl Shilton, Barwell, Sapcote, and Burbage. South-east of Leicester, Wigston Magna and Oadby were both large centres of the industry and beyond these there was the area covered by the villages of Kibworth, Smeeton Westerby, Fleckney, Arnesby, and Shearsby. Although the making of stockings was the motive for the invention of the stocking-frame, the knitted fabric which it produced could be 7 rst Appendix to Rep. Cond. Framework Knitters, [618] p. 349, H.C. (1845) xv, Broughton Astley (with Primethorpe and Sutton), 11,000 frames; ibid. p. 193, Thurmaston, 400 frames; p. 308, Long Whatton, 250 frames; p. 308, Kegworth, 176 frames; p. 198, Great Glen, 100 frames; p. 386, Ibstock, 47 frames. 8 Arnesby, Barlestone, Barsby, Huncote, Smeeton Westerby, Shearsby. 9 See below pp. 20-22. A HISTORY OF LEICESTERSHIRE a 4 2 = LEICESTERSHIRE ee FRAMEWORK KNITTERS ais a 1700 — 1800 : : = S x = Si Ware «8 > ’ ¢, ot : e el ame gaat Oe area? "hin © AB KETTLEBY > HATHERN e a oe @BURTON 7) - THORPE ACRE ¢ ON THE WOLDS 4 a RStDs I PY Sd e OSGATHORPE ® SHEPSHED LOUGHBOROUGH = @ BARROW ON SOAR = Sete RE e@ THRINGSTONE QUCRN s @WHITWICK ral LA ZOUCH MOUNTSORRELe: eSILEBY = WOODHOUSE @ REARSBY as SWITHLAND *COSSINGTON @ GADDESBY ‘ ROTHLEY eSYSTON CROPSTON e eAWANLIP Meat e@ NEWTOWN LINFORDe OTTHORKIRGON *, ANSTEY e@ @@BIRSTALL ® BARKBY THORPE é THORNTON® GROBY e BELGRAVE = QUMBERSTONE a BARLESTONE @ CE oo” BOTCHESTON fe SST ee < MARKET = @ BOSWORTH o HOUGHTON ON THE HILL © DESFORD BRAUNSTONE FevingTone BUSHEY &/, eeieenen CADEBY® eBRASCOTE ® EJCESTER FOREST @STOUGHTON © PECKLETON i Meee e *OADBY ENDERBY. AYLESTONE @ STRETTON PARVA EAR T NARBOROUGH oMgoTOn ARL SHILTON ¢@ A: WV? HUNCOTE @ BARWELL e@ COUNTESTHOR PE STONEY STANTON Spee @ TUR LANGTON ° *HINCKLEY @ KIBWORTH *e le A @SMEETON WESTERBY °e BROUGHTON wiiSucHay &ARNESBY *e ASTLEY = WATERLESS < l Py @ SHEARSBY *e ASHBY MAGNA ~e5 *s MARKET HARBOROUGH Se, e A ¢ NORTH @ KILWORTH & INDUSTRIES used for many purposes,!° so that we find that there are within the hosiery trade several diverse branches of which the manufacture of stockings is only one. By the end of the 18th century shirts, gloves, cravats, braces, together with a varied range of stockings and socks were all produced on the stocking-frame as well as a new type of manu- facture, lace.1! John Heathcoat of Loughborough was a pioneer in the manufacture of lace, but after the destruction of his lace-machines at Loughborough during the Luddite riots in 1816 he moved to Tiverton (Devon) and Leicestershire ceased to play a part in the making of lace, the main centre for which was Nottinghamshire.!2 In general, worsted hosiery was made in Leicestershire, whilst cotton hosiery was largely concentrated in Nottinghamshire and silk hosiery in Derbyshire. The making of cotton hosiery was not, however, unknown in the county; it was in fact the staple article for Hinckley and the neighbouring villages of Barwell and Earl Shilton. The shirt trade was introduced into the borough of Leicester about 1796313 in the county Lough- borough was the only centre for this branch. Glove-making, a more skilled and a more highly paid branch of the trade, employed in 1845 about 1,200 frames in Leicester.!+ Berlin gloves spread to Loughborough, Mountsorrel, Quorndon, South Croxton, and Barsby, but the fancy branch (French mitts) was confined almost entirely to the borough, employing only a few odd frames in the county.!5 Sock-making introduced into the county in c. 1810,1!6 became an extensive branch in the second quarter of the 19th century and was to be found in Belgrave, Thurmaston, Syston, Sileby, Humberstone, Wigston, Great Glen, Whetstone, Rothley, Queniborough, Rearsby, and Keyham.!7 Cosby specialized in children’s socks and Oadby in tuck socks.18 Most of the county frames, however, were engaged in making the traditional wrought-hose or fully fashioned stockings and they continued to do so, even when the borough with its superior number of frames had turned almost entirely to the more cheaply produced straight-down hose and ‘cut-ups’ intro- duced at the beginning of the 19th century. The larger centres of the trade, as might be expected, tended to draw within their orbit the 10 Rep. Cond. Framework Knitters, 21-24 lists 128 inventions between 1589 and 1843 designed to modify and improve the stocking-frame, yet there were no fundamental changes in it until the construction of the rotary frames and the application of power from the mid-rgth cent. onwards. 11 [ace was produced by various modifications to the stocking-frame. From about 1760 it became a separate industry from hosiery: Felkin, Hosiery and Lace Mftures. a2 We 12 Tbid. 237-42. 13 Rep. Cond. Framework Knitters, 99. 14 rst App. to Rep. Cond. Framework Knitters, 8. 1S Ibid. 29, 128. 16 Rep. Cond. Framework Knitters, 99. 17 Ist App. to Rep. Cond. Framework Knitters, 80. 5 framework-knitters of the surrounding villages. Joshua Clarke, a manufacturer of Hinckley in the mid-rgth century, employed 300 frames which were situated in Hinckley and in four or five neighbouring villages.2° Warner, Cartwright & Warner of Loughborough employed several hun- dred frames, many of which were in the adjoining villages, 2! and the hands working for John Wat- son of Loughborough in 1845 lived and worked in Loughborough, Thringstone, Whitwick, Bel- ton, Long Whatton, Shepshed, Osgathorpe, Dise- worth, and Sutton Bonington (Notts.).22 The manufacturers of Leicester, too, had many frames working in the villages which were within 5 or 6 miles of the borough.?3 Yet the economic links between village and village did not follow so simple a pattern as geo- graphy might suggest. John Biggs & Sons of Leicester, in addition to frames in Huncote, Nar- borough, Little Thorpe, and Cosby, also had them in Hinckley.2# One witness before the Commis- sion of 1845 went so far as to suggest that the Hinckley manufacturers had become little more than agents of the Leicester manufacturers.25 Of the 217 frames in Stoke Golding ten worked to Leicester, even though the remainder worked for the bag-hosiers or middlemen of Hinckley, which was barely 3 miles away.26 At Newton Burgo- land, 17 miles west of Leicester, there were nine frames. One or two worked for a middleman of Market Bosworth but the remainder worked direct to a manufacturer of Leicester.27 Likewise, the framework-knitters of Ibstock turned not to Whitwick, a nearby centre of some dimensions, but to Leicester.28 At Woodhouse some of the framework-knitters worked to Loughborough, others to Leicester.29 In the north-west of the county Loughborough and Shepshed had no monopoly. ‘The villages in this area were drawn economically towards Nottingham as well as to Loughborough.3° Even at the end of the 19th century the framework-knitters of Hathern still looked towards Nottingham rather than to Lough- borough, which was only 2 miles away.3! To bring the raw material to the more distant frames and to collect in return the finished article, carriers were employed. As will be seen later, the carriers were often small employers in the trade Ibid. 360 (Cosby), 115 (Oadby). See below, p. 12. rst App. to Rep. Cond. Framework Knitters, 199. Ibid. 421. 22 Thid. 423. 23 Ibid. 160. Stokes & Nephews of Leic. owned 400-500 frames and employed ‘many hundreds more in different parts of the county’. [The framework- knitters of Anstey looked to Leic.: ibid. 180. So too at Thurcaston: ibid. 196, and Blaby: ibid. 357. 24 Ibid. 51-52. 25 Ibid. 246-7. 26 Ibid. 274. 27 Ibid. 389. 28 Ibid. 384. 29 Thid. 435. 30 The framework-knitters of Kegworth were em- ployed by bagmen who worked for Nott. firms: ibid. 330. 31 Ex inf. Fuller & Hambly, Ltd., Hathern. A HISTORY OF LEICESTERSHIRE «av Cee | LEICESTERSHIRE i FRAMEWORK KNITTERS . : Oe ee 1801 — 1851 fT eortesrorD HEMINGTON L] e M@ CASTLE e @ DONINGTON # = DISEWORTH ¢ & a KEGWORTH a ear LONG WHATTON & 3 HATHERN @ e SEC EON s THORPE ACRE = e OSGATHORPE @ v gree Fag® 4 ’ sums? @ <2 o™e .@° WYMESWoLD # a* Z WALTON ON if @ SAXELBY a | THE WOLDS ASFORDBY mg MELTON MOWBRAY 2 SHEPSHED LOUGHBOROUGH COLEORTON @ @ SEAGRAVE @! HRINGSTONE o BARROW ON SOAR a 8 a a QUORN @ e ASHBY DE LA SWANNINGTON® WHIT WICK a ZOUCH MOUNT SORREL § WOODHOUSE 8 @ SILEBY A @ RAVENSTONE Oe @ HUGGLESCOTE BOF HEE ® OlENISee Retna vou CROPSTON Soran = @THORPE SATCHVILLE HEATHER @ STANTON UNDER THOR CR BARKBY BARSBY BARDON SB @ : TEST OCR a MARKFIELD StTHuRMaston’ = SOUTH CROXTON *, NEWTON BURGOLAND ANSTEY @ @THORNTON @ GROBY RATBY @ PINEAL NAILSTONE @ fa BELGRAVE @ HUMBERSTONE _ LEICESTER % BARLESTONE a’ CARLTON @ NEWBOLD YERDON MARKET @ s DESPORD BOSWORTH @CADEBY @PECKLETON ENDERBY RQ HURLASTON a a @ KNIGHTON cap SUTTON CHENEY@ 8 oADBY CO AYLESTONE @WIGSTON = BLABY Ais ee OVERY 8 WHETSTONE a BST GIES NEWTON HARCOURT COUNTESTHORP| Lt KILBY FOSTON STAPLETON DADLINGTON @ EARL ® STOKE GOLDING @ SHILTON wie BARWELLE HUNCOTE & CROFT @ WYKIN @ STONEY HINCKLey @ 9° ANTON S « = ~ SAPCOTE iB PEATLING MAGna @FLECKNEY @ BURBAGE e ARNESBY BSMEETON WESTERBY Se om BROUGHTON wittoucHBy ®@ QSHARNFORD VS ASTLEY WATERLESS - B SADDINGTON “ae FROLESWORTH @ = g = DUNTON SHEARSBY “ea, LEIRE BASSETT .@ BRUNTINGTHORPE CLAYBROOKE® Pave . e BASHBY PARVA ‘e LUTTERWORTH (o) 4 @ WALCOTE SCALE deers Sera NO MILES INDUSTRIES themselves. The degree to which the carrier system had developed by the middle of the roth century is vividly illustrated by John Palmer of Market Bosworth.32 He tells us that the frame- work-knitters of Cadeby worked for’a Leicester hosier. On Friday night they took their work to Market Bosworth, a distance of a mile and a half, whence it was taken to Leicester by a Bosworth carrier on Saturday morning. The carrier re- turned to Bosworth on Saturday night bringing in bags the raw materials for the next week’s work. ‘The Cadeby knitters collected materials on Sun- day but no money. For their wages they went on Monday morning to Hinckley, where the hosier kept a grocery shop—a distance of 6 miles. Until about the second decade of the roth century the relationship between the framework- knitter and the manufacturer, or hosier, was, generally speaking, direct and simple. The manu- facturer was an entrepreneur responsible for marketing the finished goods and for obtaining the raw materials with which the framework- knitter was supplied. He operated from his ware- house to which the framework-knitter came to collect his yarn and to return the finished article. The head of the household, owning his own frame or frames, and assisted, perhaps, by appren- tices, paid journeymen, or by members of his own family, was the unit of production. In rural districts framework-knitting was originally only an additional occupation combined with agriculture. Nathaniel Corah, the founder of the Leicester firm of N. Corah & Sons Ltd., was the son of William Corah (1747-1817), who was a farmer at Bagworth and who owned a number of frames, some of which at the time of his death stood in his own house; the remainder were let out.33 Edward Cheney of Narborough was a yeoman who died at the close of 1740. He was a freeholder and farmed lands to the extent of ‘half a quartern’34 in the open fields of Nar- borough. His personal estate was valued on 5 January 1741 at £41 18s., half of which was accounted for by his household goods and the rest by his crops (in the fields and in the barn), by his hay, straw, pigs, and a stocking-frame valued at £5.35 Jenings Berrington, a frame- work-knitter of Hathern, died in the summer of 1740, possessed of a yardland in the open fields of Hathern and 4 cow pastures, 2 of which together with a frame he had purchased from one Anthony Cock some time before the autumn of 1725.36 In the neighbouring village of Long Whatton the Middletons were farmers as well as framework- knitters in the 18th century. Robert Middleton (d. 1768) and his brother Joseph (d. 1785) are 32 rst App. to Rep. Cond. Framework Knitters, 390. 33 C. W. Webb, Hist. Rec. of N. Corah &F Sons, Ltd. 13; Wm. Corah’s Will in L.R.O. Probate Rec. 34 i.e. 4 of a yardland or virgate; the acreage is un- certain. 35 L.R.O. Probate Rec. 36 Tbid. 37 The above details are extracted from a collection both described in the probate records as frame- work-knitters. They inherited landed estate in Leicestershire and Derbyshire and in the 1740's we find them buying and exchanging land in the open fields of Long Whatton. In one transaction, which took place in 1747, Joseph Middleton is described as a yeoman.37 Not all the farmer- framework-knitters owned freehold land. Tho- mas Gunton (d. 1747), a framework-knitter of Earl Shilton, possessed a copyhold estate in Earl Shilton manor.38 The Probate records furnish evidence of the independent status of the framework-knitter apart from those for whom hosiery-making was only an additional occupation.39 Daniel Vann, a framework-knitter of Wigston Magna, died in 1680. His personal estate, which amounted to £60 19s., consisted of furniture and household goods to the value of 10 guineas, three cows and a pig worth £5. gs., clothes and cash to the value of £5, and four stocking-frames each worth £10. John Bates of Hinckley (d. 1692) was not so wealthy; although his personal estate was only £29 75., he nevertheless possessed three stocking- frames valued at £18. Thomas Fallows was a very humble framework-knitter in Little Thorpe. When he died in the early summer of 1725, his wealth amounted to just under £16 but he pos- sessed his own working frame and two cows which accounted for 60 per cent. of his worldly wealth. Joseph Canner of Ashby de la Zouch was found at the time of his death (1740) to possess a shop of frames, comprising four and a half old stocking- frames, worth £15. 10s. and in another room he had one stocking-frame worth £3. 1os. In the same year died Thomas Lord, a framework- knitter of Countesthorpe; he owned his own house and at least two frames, one worked by his son, Joseph, and the other by a relative. William Wood of Knighton also possessed a shop of frames: two frames worth £7 each and one frame ‘quite wore down’ worth £4. But when he died in the spring of 1751 he was hopelessly in debt. “Thomas Elkington (d. 1770), a framework-knitter of Newton Harcourt, owned his house and a few frames, and Thomas Gurford (d. between 1810 and 1812), a framework-knitter of Primethorpe in Broughton Astley parish, owned his own cottage together with a workshop, pigsty, and a small garden. One stocking-frame he bequeathed to his wife and the remainder he put in trust to be let out; the rents thereof were to go to his wife during her lifetime, after deducting the expenses incurred in repairing and maintaining the frames. In the 17th and 18th centuries entry into the trade was normally by apprenticeship, usually for of MSS. rel. to the Middletons of Long Whatton in L.R.O. 38 L.R.O. Probate Rec. 39 This paragraph is based on the Wills and inv. among the L.R.O. Probate Rec. except for the will of Thos. Gurford of Primethorpe in Broughton Astley par., which is among the ‘Moulton MSS.’, ibid. A HISTORY OF LEICESTERSHIRE 7 years, as in the case of the older industries which came within the scope of the Statute of Artificers of 1563.4° By a charter granted by Charles IT in 1663 the London framework-knitters became an incorporated company and, as such, they attempted to enforce their by-laws upon the framework- knitters of the midlands. Those efforts proved fruitless and we find that the midland framework- knitters in no way regarded themselves as re- stricted in the number of apprentices they might wish to employ.4" Under the old Poor Law the overseers took advantage of the expansion of the industry in the 18th century to apprentice to the master framework-knitters the growing number of paupers left in their charge,42 and, to meet the heavy demands made of the trade during the French Wars, large numbers of apprentices were brought into the county and borough from the neighbouring counties of Northampton and War- wick.43 In Hinckley, it was said, some masters employed as many as a dozen apprentices.44 Apprenticing on such a scale had its nemesis. With the peace that followed Waterloo and the discharge of large numbers of framework-knitters from the armies, labour in the trade became re- dundant. As wages fell and the standard of living of the stockinger was reduced, so apprenticeship declined. In order to put a few more shillings into the family purse, the stockingers began to teach their own children how to work the frames. It had long been customary for children even from a very tender age to be employed in the sub- sidiary tasks of winding and seaming. When evidence was given before the Commission of 1845 it was reported that such practices had become almost the sole means of recruitment. One witness estimated that the 600 or more apprentices who used to be seen in Hinckley had dwindled to 20.45 The successful master also employed journey- men in addition to his apprentices. Some of the journeymen lived in with their employer and be- 40 As the invention of the stocking-frame post-dated the Stat. of Artificers it was ruled in 1655 that the provisions of that Act respecting apprenticeship did not apply to framework-knitters. See E. Lipson, Econ. Hist. Engl. (31d edn.), i, 282. 41 The Framework Knitters Co. lost a test case in 1728 brought against Cartwright of Nottingham, and again in 1745 further attempts to enforce their by-laws failed. ‘This time protests from Nott. and Godalming (Surr.) resulted in an inquiry by a Select Cttee. of the Ho. of Commons, the outcome of which proved un- favourable to the Co.: Felkin, Hosiery and Lace Mftures. 74-81. 42 Among the Desford Civil Par. Rec. (L.R.O.) there are 167 apprenticeship indentures, ranging from 1721 to 1831. Of these, 88 relate to paupers apprenticed to framework-knitting. 43 rst App. to Rep. Cond. Framework Knitters, 10, 396. 44 Ibid. 108, 396. 45 Ibid. 17, 108, 226, 302. 46 Tbid. 48. Chas. Pritchett of Woodhouse Eaves had 8 frames, 4 of which were worked by indoor came known as indoor journeymen. It was not, however, so common in rural districts as in the borough for the journeymen to live in.4® ‘To accommodate the frames worked by the apprentices and journeymen, buildings known as ‘shops’ were erected at the rear of the master stockinger’s house. In some parts of the county framework-knitters’ shops may still be seen and they are distinguished by the narrow windows, placed just under the eaves, which ran the whole length of the building.47 It was the upper floor which was generally used to house the frames and it was approached by a ladder pushed through a trap-door in the floor.48 As an alternative, a shop might be built over the top of several adjacent cottages. Not all the frames, however, were kept in shops; many remained in the stockinger’s own rooms and the operatives sat back to back.49 Early in the 19th century, however, the inde- pendence of the framework-knitter was under- mined by two factors; the widespread development of frame-letting and the emergence of middlemen who came between the knitter and the manu- facturer.5° By 1800 the hiring of a frame at a rent instead of purchasing one was rapidly becoming the general practice of the framework-knitter.5! The expansion of the trade and especially the practice of master stockingers in taking large numbers of apprentices at the end of the 18th century no doubt facilitated this development. Thomas Briers, a framework-knitter of Shepshed, who had known the trade for over 50 years, declared before the Commissioner of 1845 that ‘the hosiers were principally the possessors of the frames in [his] time’ and it was only partly true that 50 years before the frames had been largely the stockingers’ own.52 By the middle of the 19th century the personal frame of the operative had almost dis- appeared. There is abundant evidence that even those who owned their own frames had by that journeymen living in his house: ibid. 437. ‘Thos. Heafield, Sec. of the Whitwick Branch of the Frame- work Knitters’ Union, also worked as an indoor journeyman in Whitwick: ibid. 339. 47 e.g. in Hathern and Long Whatton. 48 Ex inf. Mrs. Lister of Long Whatton, who came from an old stockinger family. 49 Ex inf. Mrs. Lister. 50 rst App. to Rep. Cond. Framework Knitters, 79-80. Joseph Swift of Eaton St., Leic., considered that the middleman system ‘began to be prevalent about the year 1819 or 1820; but it was first introduced, I think, partially about 1812’. Edw. Allen of Leic. deposed that it ‘commenced after the year 1816’: ibid. 36, and Thomas Nevil of Leic. put the date about 1825: ibid. 51 Frame-letting was an established practice in the early 18th cent. By 1745 the letting of frames by those connected with the trade was causing some trouble to the Framework Knitters Co., which made a by-law that no member should ‘hire frames but of such as are members’: Felkin, Hosiery and Lace Mftures. 77. 52 rst App. to Rep. Cond. Framework Knitters, 311. INDUSTRIES time either sold them or put them aside in favour of renting a frame in order to make sure of receiv- ing work.53 Not all frames hired were hosiers’. “There was a large number of what were called ‘independent’ frames; that is to say, frames owned by people not in the trade but let out solely for the purpose of enjoying the profits of their rents. There were also the frames owned by the middlemen. Of this latter development we have already caught a glimpse in the will of Thomas Gurford of Prime- thorpe, who put his frames in trust to be let out on hire. Richard Wileman of Earl Shilton, who passed through the ranks from framework-knitter to manufacturer, possessed in 184.5 between two and three hundred frames which he let out to the hands he employed.54 ‘The development of frame- letting cannot, indeed, be entirely separated from the growth of the middleman; the one reacted upon the other, and, as the knitter came more and more to depend upon the middleman for his supply of work, so the middleman made it a condition (implicit if not explicit) that he hire a frame. Frames not hired were the first to remain idle when trade became slack.55 Three types of middlemen may be distin- guished: the putter-out, the undertaker or master, and the bagman or bag-hosier. It is, nevertheless, difficult at times to say when a bagman becomes an undertaker and some of the witnesses before the Commission of 1845 regarded the two latter terms as synonymous.5® ‘The putter-out took out to the villages the hosiers’ yarn and brought back to the warehouse the made-up goods. He was in fact simply the channel through which the hosier distributed his raw materials. “The putter-out did not contract with the hosier for any particular orders; he did not employ the knitters. “They, on the contrary, were paid the warehouse rates and for the services of the putter-out they paid what were called ‘taking-in’ charges. Despite its appar- ent advantages, some framework-knitters pre- ferred to walk miles to the hosier’s warehouse in order to collect their raw materials and to take in their made-up goods.57 In the mid-1gth century some firms had several hundred separate accounts with framework-knitters, which were all dealt 53 e.g. Storals Wise of Anstey who had possessed a frame of his own for 30 years was compelled ‘through the badness of employment’ to put it aside and take 2 hosiers’ frames: rst App. to Rep. Cond. Framework Knitters, 178. Likewise Wm. Sheen of Little Thorpe was forced to sell his own frame: ibid. 186. Wm. Biggs, the Leic. hosier, declared that it was true that many sold their own frames for the purpose of renting one from the hosier in order to ensure regular employment: ibid. 65. 54 Ibid. 295. 55 Ibid. 65, 204. 56 Ibid. 1, 21, 199, 327. 57 e.g. the framework-knitters of Blaby walked the 44 miles to Leic. each Sat. morning, for they were ‘not possessed of that evil so much in Blaby as in other places —the evil of truck masters and undertakers’ (ibid. 357). So, too, the framework-knitters of Narborough (ibid. 190), Thurcaston (ibid. 196), and Huncote (ibid. 353). LEICS. III 9 with on a Saturday by the personal visit of the knitter. 58 The framework-knitter’s suspicion that the putter-out might develop into an obstacle in the way of his direct relation with the manufacturer was not unjustified. It was but an easy step for the putter-out to become a middleman properly so called: that is, the actual employer of the opera- tives who were to make up the goods for which the middleman had contracted with the hosier.59 Such was the undertaker, who, nevertheless, did not issue to the knitters his own yarn but the yarn supplied to him by the hosier. The bag-hosier, on the other hand, was origin- ally distinguished from the undertaker by the fact that he had his own yarn made up by the knitters and he marketed the finished goods himself. It was all on a small scale. His market was limited; he sold to hawkers or carried the hose in a bag— hence the name, given at first in contempt—to shops or to the Leicester hosiers.6° “The bag- hosiers bought their yarn from any source avail- able; a large part of it was embezzled from the hosiers by the framework-knitters themselves, who then sent it to Leicester to be purchased by the bag-hosiers.®! But when the bag-hosier extended the limits of his market and also undertook to work for the larger manufacturers,®? the distinction between himself and the larger-scale undertaker became increasingly more difficult to draw. ‘The undertaker and the bag-hosier sprang up from among the more enterprising framework- knitters, who gradually acquired a stock of frames. Some had an extraordinarily rapid success like the framework-knitter of Earl Shilton, who within a space of four years bought up thirty frames.®3 Not all their frames were purchased; they also rented independent frames which they then sub-let.6+ It seems that, generally speaking, by 1845 the county trade was not so extensively organized through middlemen as the borough trade.®5 A census of middlemen is not possible. “There is no uniformity; some villages are dominated by the middleman; others are free of them. For example, among the villages within a short distance of the borough, Anstey, Thurcaston, and Blaby had no 58 bid. 421. Messrs. Warner, Cartwright, & Warner employing several hundred frames kept separate ac- counts with all their hands. 59 2nd App. to Rep. Cond. Framework Knitters [641] PeOsstd@a (1845), xv. 60 rst App. to Rep. Cond. Framework Knitters, 182, 95- 6t Ibid. 182-3. 62 Ibid. 16. Observe, also, Wm. Sheen of Little Thorpe working for an undertaker named Mr. Colston, who worked in turn for several manufacturers in Leics.: ibid. 185. 63 Ibid. 49. 64 Tbid. 16-17. 65 Ibid. 44, 416. John Cooke, a manufacturer of Loughborough, all of whose hands were directly em- ployed from his warehouse, seldom had to deal with a hand who failed to make up his accounts. Such a failing was, he believed, ‘one reason why there are so many middlemen now in being, especially in the Leic. trade’. 2 Cc A HISTORY OF LEICESTERSHIRE middlemen, but in Wigston the trade was in the hands of several undertakers and at Cosby the framework-knitters worked for two undertakers. In Hinckley and Loughborough they did not possess an influence comparable to that held by the middlemen in Leicester,67 though some of the villages which fell within their economic orbits were under middlemen. Such were Belton, Keg- worth, and Long Whatton in the Loughborough area and Stoke Golding, Earl Shilton, and Barwell in the Hinckley district.68 The knitters of Wood- house Eaves, however, worked directly for the Loughborough warehouses.°9 Of the seventy frames operating in Market Bosworth at this time, twenty-three worked for a local bag-hosier and the remainder for two other bag-hosiers—one in ‘Saddleton’ (?Dadlington) and the other in Stoke Golding.7° In Barrow upon Soar and Mountsorrel there was roughly the same number of frames. In the former there were no middle- men but the majority of the frames in Mount- sorrel were employed by a bag-hosier of Sileby.7! ‘The middlemen obtained their economic ascen- dancy over the rank and file by various practices, the foremost of which were truck, stinting, and price-cutting. “Truck was a particularly powerful weapon in the hands of the middlemen. Abundant evidence was given before the Commission of 1845 which shows how the truck system operated and the grievous burden it imposed upon the framework-knitter. It appears that those who were engaged in grocery or general dealing were quick to exploit the practice of frame letting. ‘Their example was followed by the incipient middlemen among the framework-knitters, who used the profits derived from selling foodstuffs to acquire frames.72 They then let out their frames to the knitters, who were forced to accept truck as payment out of fear of losing work, so that the framework-knitter not only paid the middleman rent for the hire of his tools, i.e. his frame, but, in addition, contributed to the profits which he de- rived from his grocery trade. Despite the Truck Act of 1831 and vigorous attempts to enforce its provisions, truck was still being practised in Leicestershire in the 19th cen- tury. It was more prevalent in the county than in the borough, probably, because in the borough moves to stop truck had the support of the manu- facturers, who were able to give alternative em- 66 rst App. to Rep. Cond. Framework Knitters, 180, 182 (Anstey), 196 (Thurcaston), 357 (Blaby), 366 (Wigston), 360-2 (Cosby). 67 Ibid. 221 (Hinckley). “There are a few bagmen, but comparatively speaking few’, but observe the evi- dence of Wm. Wykes of Hinckley, ibid. 244: ‘Many [bagmen] have set up, or there would not have been any employment in the town.’ See for Loughborough, ibid. 416, 421, 423. 68 Ibid. 327 (Belton), 330 (Kegworth), 331 (Long Whatton), 275 (Stoke Golding), 284, 287 (Earl Shil- ton), 276 (Barwell). 69 Ibid. 437. 79 Ibid. 389. 71 Ibid. 430,432. 72 Ibid. 49. ployment to those hands who lost work through giving information against their truck masters. Prosecutions under the Truck Act had some effect in the county; though frequently the middle- men, and occasionally a larger manufacturer who was trucking turned only to indirect methods which put them outside the scope of the law.73 In Earl Shilton most of the small grocers held frames and acted as middlemen. In the words of Isaac Abbott, a framework-knitter of the village, ‘they give out their work the same as the other hosiers, and they take it in the same. They do not, perhaps, take it in in the grocery shop, but they have a room above-stairs where they take in the work, and pay the hands their money in that room, and the hands have to pass through the shop in coming out of that room, and there they lay out their money, or pay off the bill for the goods they have had the previous week.’74 At Cosby a bag- man, employing 40 to 50 frames, did not keep his grocery shop and warehouse separate but made his ‘shop of the warehouse, and the warehouse of the shop’.75 A slightly different practice obtained at Ibstock where the truck master not only sold grocery but was a farmer, hosier, butcher, and draper.76 He paid his hands in cash but they, then, paid it back to his wife for goods previously obtained on credit. At Whitwick the employers all kept shops; and, though they did not pay in goods, they forced their hands to buy foodstuffs from them under pain of losing work.77 Similarly, at Huncote a very successful undertaker, who be- came a considerable manufacturer employing about 300 frames, retained his grocery and drapery shop to which his hands resorted lest they “be deficient in work’ when trade became flat.78 Wigston, too, was a centre of small masters or middlemen, most of whom kept shops.79 And at Oadby, which had almost a monopoly of the tuck- sock branch of the trade, the knitters themselves openly opposed the efforts to suppress truck for fear of the consequences, should they lay informa- tion against the two or three middlemen in whose hands that section of the trade was concentrated.8° Even when trucking was eliminated, the close connexion between the bag-hosiers and the retail trades was not severed. It still persisted at the end of the 19th century. Trade directories for the years 1888 and 1894 reveal that the licensee of the ‘Sir Robert Peel’ at Countesthorpe was a bag- 73 Ibid. 21. At Hinckley Edw. Kem Jarvis, a solicitor and former hosiery manufacturer, played a leading role in the attempt to suppress truck: ibid. 206-8. See also ibid. 225. 74 Tia. 284. 75 Ibid. 362. 76 Tbid. 385. 77 Ibid. 335, 339- 7% Ibid. 353. 79 Ibid. 15, 366. 80 Ibid 80, 114-15, 120. Other villages where truck was reported to the Commissioner were Belgrave, Broughton Astley (Primethorpe), Little Thorpe, Long Whatton, Kibworth, Smeeton Westerby, Saddington, Market Bosworth, Narborough, Rothley, Sileby, Stoke Golding, Syston, ‘Thurmaston. IO INDUSTRIES hosier.8! So, too, was the licensee of the ‘Blue Lion’ at Thrussington.82 At Oadby S. Matthews and §. Burnham were bag-hosiers and beer re- tailers.83 G. Loveday of Smeeton Westerby was a general dealer, chimney-sweep, and bag-hosier.84 The sub-postmaster of Hathern was also a bag- hosier and shopkeeper.85 At Sharnford Joseph Sanders carried on the business of shopkeeper and carrier to Hinckley in addition to that of bag- hosier®¢ and at Rothley Joseph Underwood, a shoe manufacturer, also acted as bag-hosier.87 Lastly, Henry Johnson of Syston combined hosiery with brickmaking and grocery.88 Stinting was the practice whereby the weekly work of a frame was restricted. It seems to have been practised particularly when trade was slack. Among the middlemen it also took another form; namely, the spreading of the work received from the manufacturer over the middleman’s indepen- dent frames as well as over the manufacturer’s frames which he held and for which the work was issued.89 “They [the middlemen] take 20 frames from a certain manufacturer, and they divide that 20 frames’ work into 30, and instead of the frame- work-knitter having what is allowed from the warehouse, he has but what we may call two- thirds of it.’9° This practice was particularly odious to the framework-knitter. For he was thereby prevented from working his frames to their full weekly capacity, even though trade was good; and yet he was required to pay more frame- rents, standing- and taking-in charges than the amount of work warranted in respect of the extra frames put into operation. As for the undertaker or bag-hosier, it turned his independent frames into a profitable investment. Price-cutting by the middlemen wasa grievance which weighed heavily upon both framework- knitter and manufacturer. By relying upon the extra frame rents from their independent frames, and, if they were in addition truck masters, also upon the profits from their grocery, drapery, or general stores, the middlemen were able to sell the hosiery made up on their own account at cost or under cost price.9! The Leicester manufacturers were particularly affected by such practices, for the middlemen came to Leicester and there con- tracted orders to be executed by the country hands ata reduced rate.92 In Hinckley, the larger manu- facturers had by 1845 almost become swamped 81 C. N. Wright, Dir. Leic. (1888), 386; Wright, Dir. Leic. (1894), 367. 82 Wright, Dir. Leic. (1888), 575. 83 Ibid. 531. 84 Ibid. 558; Wright, Dir. Leic. (1894), 585. 85 Wright, Dir. Leic. (1888), 413; Wright, Dir. Leic. (1894), 464. 86 Wright, Dir. Leic. (1888), 551; Wright, Dir. Leic. (1894), 578. 87 Wright, Dir. Leic. (1888), 545. 8) Ibid. 571. 89 rst App. to Rep. Cond. Framework Knitters [618] PP- 3-4, 15-16, 160, H.C. (1845), xv. LT by the middlemen, so that Hinckley, according to one witness as we have already observed, was well on the way to becoming the workshop of Leicester. In retaliation the manufacturers cut their costs by reducing wages. “This was a serious imposition upon the framework-knitters. For their dread of the union workhouse rendered resistance to reduc- tions ineffectual, since, under the Poor Law Act of 1834, out-door relief was reduced to a mini- mum and the framework-knitter, jealous of his independence, would rather take lower wages than enter the ‘new Bastilles’.93 This fear played into the hands of the middle- men and in times of distress they even became a boon to the framework-knitter. During times of slack trade they would have small quantities made up at low rates, which the framework-knitters in those circumstances were only too pleased to accept. According to William Wykes, a middle- man of Hinckley, if the bagmen had not set up in Hinckley, ‘there would not have been any employ- ment in the town. Those people used to go to Leicester, and fetch work and they the hosiers of Hinckley got them [i.e. the bagmen] to work for them at certain times.’94 Among the manufacturers opinion was likewise divided over the usefulness of the middleman. Some looked favourably upon his place within the structure of the trade and deemed him necessary because he took over the work of distributing the raw materials and of collecting the made-up goods from perhaps two or three hundred hands.95 Other manufacturers, on the contrary, still kept separate accounts with large numbers of hands and one Hinckley firm which used to work through undertakers had returned to the practice of dealing directly with the framework-knitters.% The first half of the 19th century was a period of prolonged depression for the framework-knitter. The nature of the trade itself made it somewhat seasonal and its prosperity was particularly sensi- tive to changes of fashion. As Felkin observed, fancy hosiery, which was at its zenith about 1800, began to decline and continued to do so for the next 40 years as a result of a change in fashion.97 A witness before the Commission of 1845 attri- buted the shrinking of the home market toa ‘change of fashion—to trousers, boots, gaiters, and long petticoats being worn’.°8 At Hinckley there was what was called the Hinckley season, which began 90 Tbid. 203. 91 Ibid. 49, 183, 204, 208. 92 Tbid. 21, 45. 93 Ibid. 108-9, 183, 354-5. 94 Ibid. 244. 95 Ibid. 63. 96 Ibid. 254. G. Woodcock of Hinckley employed over 300 hands directly from his warehouse and only 150 through bagmen. Warner, Cartwright, & Warner of Loughborough employed several hundred frames and kept separate accounts with the framework-knitters: ibid. 421. Joshua Clarke, a manufacturer of Hinckley, reverted to the practice of direct relations with the hands: ibid. 202. 97 Felkin, Hosiery and Lace Mftures. (1867), 434. 98 rst App. to Rep. Cond. Framework Knitters, 322. A HISTORY OF LEICESTERSHIRE at the end of November and lasted until the begin- ning of May. For the remainder of the year trade in wrought brown cotton hose, the staple trade of the area, was very flat.99 By the middle of the 19th century Leicester- shire hosiery seems to have been largely eclipsed in the foreign markets, particularly in the Ameri- can market, by the German manufacturers of Saxony.! According to William Biggs of the firm of John Biggs & Sons, Leicester, go per cent. of the Leicestershire trade in 1845 was for the home market; whereas twenty years earlier the export trade was three times as great as it was at that time.2 Benjamin Knight, a smaller manufacturer of Primethorpe, by Broughton Astley, who em- ployed about 170 hands, sold to the factors of London, Bristol and Manchester. Formerly, he worked a third of the year making foreign orders for the Leicester houses, but when he gave evidence in 1845 he declared that his shipping trade had gone.3 The decline in foreign trade, as regards the county, was not, indeed, entirely due to foreign competition. The distinction between the county and the borough trade must be borne in mind. ‘The county was still engaged in making wrought hose when the borough had adopted the new technique of ‘cut-ups’ or ‘spurious goods’ and it was by exporting the latter that the borough was able to keep a place in the foreign markets. For this reason most of the witnesses before the Commission of 1845 did not regard the competi- tion of the Saxon framework-knitters as the sole, nor even the principal, cause of the depression which afflicted the trade at that time. They laid great stress upon the new type of hose—the ‘cut-up’ or the unfashioned stocking, which made its appearance at the close of the Napoleonic Wars.4 99 rst App. to Rep. Cond. Framework Knitters, 200, 205. 1 For the growth of the German hosiery industry, and its effects upon Brit. overseas markets, see the evidence of (2) Wm. Biggs: ibid. 53-54; (4) Joshua Clarke, manufacturer of Hinckley: ibid. 200; (c) E. K. Jarvis: ibid. 208; (7) Wm. Sills, a principal manufac- turer in Hinckley: ibid. 253; (e) Wm. Cotton, a manufacturer of Shepshed: ibid. 322. Biggs said: “Hinckley goods are now beaten out of the United States market by the manufacturers of the continent. The articles in which we have been superseded by the Germans are men’s and women’s brown and coloured hose and half-hose.’ Clarke said: ‘It is very seldom we can get any orders for shipping for wrought-hose— very seldom indeed. They cannot go the price we charge for them.’ 2 Ibid. 64. 3 Ibid. 351. 4 Cf. Geo. Woodcock, a manufacturer of Hinckley: ‘where perhaps, 7 years ago, a London house would buy their brown cotton hose in Hinckley, they now go to Leicester for the great bulk of them, because they can get a greater proportion of straight-downs made there. ... I think we shall be obliged to get wide frames made here to compete with our neighbours at Leicester’: ibid. 257. 12 The ‘cut-up’, as its name implies, was made by cutting the stocking to shape from the fabric and sewing the pieces together. As the stocking had no narrowings to shape it to the leg, it was then laid upon a leg-board and shaped by applying heat and steam. Wider frames were built to make the fabric, so that, in effect, several stockings could be knitted at the same time compared with only one fashioned stocking produced on the narrow frame.5 Since they could, therefore, be produced more cheaply and in greater quantities than the wrought hose, they found a ready market among the labour- ing classes as well as providing an export com- modity which was able to compete with foreign hosiery. The wide frames dealt a heavy blow at the rural industry. The older country stockingers, jealous of their skill, were strongly opposed to the wide frames and the ‘spurious’ hose they produced. The increased production from the wide frames, however, reacted unfavourably upon the country areas. “The younger men drifted from the villages either to other industries or to Leicester to work on the wide frames or in the more highly paid glove branch. ‘The wide frames were, indeed, almost entirely restricted to Leicester borough.? At Broughton Astley and Hinckley, the larger centres in the south and south-west of the county, they made little progress. In the north-west at Shepshed there were in 1845 only thirty-three wide frames compared with 1,051 narrow ones.9 Wide frames were introduced at Kegworth but were later withdrawn, as the stockingers could not work them.!° At Barrow upon Soar only one frame out of 250 appears to have been a wide one and all the 339 frames at Whitwick were reported to be engaged on wrought hose.!! But at Loughborough they were being more exten- sively used!2 and at least one manufacturer there, 5 Ibid. 33. “The wide frames have been the ruin of the wrought-hose. They can make four and five at once. They have run us out. They can make many more than we can. We have to narrow them all through, and throw in between the needles to shape the leg and the feet the same, and the toes the same. The wide ones work through carriers.’ 6 Ibid. 176. 7 Ibid. 63. ‘Are there many wide frames in the country ?—Very few. They are mainly confined to Leicester.’ 8 Ibid. 351. The framework-knitters of Prime- thorpe (Broughton Astley par.) left to enter the ‘cut-up’ branch and glove branch at Leic. In Hinckley note: (2) ibid. 99: Joshua Clarke employed 300 frames, all on wrought cotton hose. (4) Geo. Woodcock employed about 400 frames (ibid. 254) all on wrought hose ‘with the exception of a few wide frames’. (ibid. 257). (c) Wm. Sills employed about 800 frames (ibid. 252) but only recently had introduced a few wide frames (ibid. 253). 9 Ibid. 308. 10 bid. 329. 11 Tbid. 428 (Barrow upon Soar), 341 (Whitwick). 12 Tbid. 394, where stated that there were 100-150 wide frames in Loughborough. INDUSTRIES John Cooke, fitted to his wide frames a newly invented piece of machinery, which mechanically narrowed or fashioned the stockings.13 ‘There seems no doubt that during this period the industry was suffering from a surplus of labour.!4 It has already been stated that at the close of the 18th century the practice was to em- ploy larger numbers of apprentices drawn espe- cially from among the pauper children left on the hands of the overseers of the poor. The French Wars made heavy demands on the industry and, as the armies took away the younger framework- knitters, so their places were filled by semi-skilled hands.15 After the peace the erstwhile soldiers returned to their frames;!© wages dropped, declin- ing by as much as 30 to 40 per cent.!7 Frame rents, moreover, began to rise as a result of the exploitation of the independent frame and the ser- vices of the newly risen class of middlemen—the undertakers and bag-hosiers—were charged upon the framework-knitter in the form of larger de- ductions from his weekly wage.!8 The frame- work-knitters, therefore, took on more and more frames in an effort to increase their earnings as well as to ensure a minimum of work from the manufacturers and middlemen whose frames they rented. ‘These extra frames were worked not by apprentices but by their own children who grew up with no other knowledge than framework- knitting. The effect of these factors was cumula- tive. The total numbers in the trade increased out of all proportion to demand, especially for the wrought hose, the staple product of the rural trade. 13 rst App. to Rep. Cond. Framework Knitters, 416. 14 Ibid. 122. Thomas Wood, a partner in the Leic. firm of Ann Wood & Sons, working mainly for the Scots market, declared that surplus labour had existed ‘at all events certainly since 1836’. Robert Spencer of Loughborough had no doubt that excessive numbers of apprentices had caused an undue proportion of labour- ers in the market: ibid. 396. 15 Cf. Thomas Wood: ibid. 122. 16 Tbid. 108-9. 17 Rep. Cond. Framework Knitters, [609] pp. 38, 39, H.C. (1845), xv; rst App. to Rep. Cond. Framework Knitters, 55. Wm. Biggs quotes the gross rate for the staple article made on the narrow frames—women’s 24-gauge worsted stockings, 104 leads wide—as having fallen from 75. 6d. a dozen in 1815 to 45. 6d. a dozen in 1841. See rst App. to Rep. Cond. Framework Knitters, 499-500, for a tabular analysis of the evidence given in relation to wages. % Until c. 1825 frame rent for the wrought-hose narrow frames was about 9d. a week but in 1844 it had risen to Is. or even 15. 3d. a week: 15¢ App. to Rep. Cond. Framework Knitters, 191,238. In addition to the frame rent there were deductions from the gross weekly wages for frame-standing, for carriage or taking-in, as well as for winding and seaming. For a tabular analysis of these ‘shop-charges’ given in the evidence see ibid. 488—go. 19 Felkin, Hosiery and Lace Mftures. 229. In 1773 a mob at Leic. destroyed a newly-invented stocking- machine, and in 1788 the invention of Brookhouse for spinning worsted yarn, which had been adopted by Coltman & Whetstone, worsted-yarn makers of Leic., Various methods were tried to arrest the de- terioration in the status of the framework-knitter and to alleviate his distress. Frame-breaking, the natural reaction of the stockinger who saw his livelihood threatened by improved machinery, does not appear to have been very widespread in Leicestershire. This form of protest against new inventions was not unknown in the county in the 18th century! but during the period of distress 181 1-12 when frame-breaking was serious in Nottinghamshire few frames were broken in Leicestershire.2° “The most serious outbreak was in 1816 at Loughborough where the lace frames of Messrs. Heathcoat, Lacy & Boden were destroyed.2!_ As already observed Heathcoat left Loughborough and removed the lace trade from Leicestershire to Devonshire. Disturbances threatened in Hinckley and Loughborough in 1830, and, although the Home Office was peti- tioned for military aid as a precaution, it does not seem that anything serious developed.22 ‘Trade unionism did not make much progress in the hosiery trade in Leicestershire during the first half of the r9th century. Associations were formed after the peace of 1815 to deal with the problem caused by the spread of ‘cut-ups’.23 Re- peatedly appeal was made to observe the State- ment, the agreed prices for work in the various branches of the trade,?4 but the rural stockingers were ready to take work from the middlemen at almost any price and especially when trade was flat.25 “Those who gave evidence before the Com- mission of 1845 complained of the lack of spirit was destroyed together with the houses of Coltman and Whetstone. 20 Felkin, op. cit. 236. 21 [bid. 237-42. 22 H.O. 52/8. Letter 1 Feb. 1830 from Hinckley Justices; letter 4 June 1830 from J. Dyke, J.P., in Hinckley, asking for the military, because ‘there is not much chance of the Hosiers and the Stocking makers coming to an understanding it might be advisable for you to station soldiers here for a few weeks or until things are settled—special Constables are but a poor protection at best owing to their connexion with the inhabitants’. Letters 30 Nov. 1830 from N. Heyrick— 400 or 500 stocking-makers at Loughborough went to the houses of two manufacturers to demand higher wages. 23 References to the formation of Framework Knitters Assocs. are to be found in the local newspapers. In 1794 there was such an assoc. to deal with the problem of absconded apprentices (Leic. Fn/. 25 July 1794) but after 1815 the chief problem concerned ‘cut-ups’ and the ‘Statement’ price for work done. 24 e.g, Leic. Ful. 19 April 1816, Meeting of frame- work-knitters of Leic. and Leics. Also, ibid. 3 Sept. 1819, General Meeting of the Loughborough District of Framework-knitters. It was resolved (izter a/ia) that it was ‘the imperious duty of every Framework knitter immediately to enrol himself and become a member of the United Framework Knitters Union Soc. of the Town and County of Leic.? Other resolutions con- cerned the taking out of work under the Statement price. 25 Cf. rst App. to Rep. Cond. Framework Knitters, 21. 13 A HISTORY OF LEICESTERSHIRE among the country framework-knitters, who, it was alleged, considered themselves fortunate that work should even be given to them by the masters.2© Thomas Upton of ‘Thurmaston, who was in the sock branch, toured eighteen villages with the object of forming a union but found that the hands were unwilling to incur further expense.27, Only among the framework-knitters in the glove branch centred on Leicester did trade unionism attain much strength. In order to over- come the opposition of this union the manufac- turers in Leicester were forced to move their frames to Loughborough where there was no union.28 To guard against illness the framework-knitters associated themselves into voluntary sick clubs and friendly societies. At Little Thorpe such a club counted amongst its members most of the frame- work-knitters of the locality. Their age-limit for admission was over 16 years but under 35 and each member irrespective of age paid a monthly subscription of 1s. 2d. Sick benefit amounted to 6s. a week.29 The sick clubs, however, were the first to feel the effects of a recession in trade. During the depression (1839-41) 13 of the 15 sick clubs in Hinckley, which numbered about 1,000 members, were closed owing to the inability of the members to pay their subscriptions.3° The Anstey framework-knitters had a sick club of about a hundred members but members were con- tinually being admitted and then rejected for fail- ing to pay their contributions.3! For the same reason there was a decline in the membership of the sick clubs of Ibstock and Thurcaston.32 At times of severe distress appeal was made to the generosity of the public at large and public subscriptions were raised to relieve the worst cases of poverty.33 The cotton famine of 1862 caused the most acute distress in Hinckley and district. The Hinckley and District Relief Committee formed to deal with the problem disbursed more than £6,000 received from public and private donations.34 Another experiment, which appears to have been tried on a fairly extensive scale at the time of the Commission of 1845, was the provision of allotments for the framework-knitters on the principle that they would not only provide food for a framework-knitter’s family when unem- ployment was rife, but they would also sustain the morale of the stockinger by furnishing an alternative occupation against enforced idleness. 26 rst App. to Rep. Cond. Framework Knitters, 395. 27 Tbid. 193-4. 8 Ibid. 159. 29 Ibid. 186. 30 Ibid. 54, 233. 31 Tbid. 181, 185. 32 Ibid. 385 (Ibstock) and 198 (‘Thurcaston). 33 G. Mettam and J. Dyke in 1816 petitioned the H.O. regarding ‘the present distressed state of the stocking manufactories at Hinckley’, whether ‘there would be any disposition on the part of the Govern- ment to advance some money to find employment for the poor until a favourable change takes place’. Lord Sidmouth replied ‘Upon the best consideration, it is not Associations were formed with the object of leas- ing land on favourable terms. At Great Glen the allotment society was incorporated and undertook to manage the allotments and guarantee the rents. In 1845 64 members held a total of 16 acres.35 At Barwell an allotment system was first begun as early as 1820 but it was not generally intro- duced in the village until about 1843 when 9 acres were turned over to allotments for 130 members.36 About the same time 250 members in Ear] Shilton held 50 acres and at Hinckley 170 members 35 acres.37 At Loughborough 160 members cropped 20 acres and at Cosby 23 acres were divided amongst 92 members.38 Over the county as a whole the allotment system in 184.5 was operating in about 60 different parishes.39 We have already noted how the making of ‘cut- ups’ and the glove trade in Leicester borough at- tracted the framework-knitters away from the vil- lages. In the mining area of the county the exodus from the trade into the collieries became even more pronounced. In Ibstock there used to be 150 frames but in 1845 there were only 47.49 At Bagworth there were 34 compared with 100-200 frames 25 years earlier4! and in Newbold Verdon the frames were reduced to but a quarter of what they formerly were.42, At Great Glen the move was largely back to agriculture, reducing the frames in the village by as much as 37 per cent. in the course of 15 years.43 This drift from the rural centres was not halted until the last two decades of the century when the borough manufacturers once again enlisted rural labour for the factories that they began to build in the old village centres. ‘The middle years of the 19th century saw the emergence of two new factors which in the course of the succeeding 60 years destroyed the domestic character of the industry and brought it under the factory system. They were the employment of women in increasing numbers and the application of mechanical power to the stocking-frame. It was the common practice for women and children to be employed in the ancillary tasks of winding, seaming, and footing. In the middle decades of the 19th century it was no longer the exception for women to work the frames them- selves. John Geary of Anstey told the Commis- sioner of 1845 that whereas in 1810 few women were to be found working frames in Anstey it was lately the tendency for them to do so. He attri- buted the growing practice to the invention of the spinning-jenny which drove out the spinning- deemed advisable on the part of the Government to issue Public Money for the purposes mentioned in your communication’: H.O. 41/1. 34 A.J. Pickering, Cradle and Home of Hosiery Trade, IIO-IT. 35 rst App. to Rep. Cond. Framework Knitters, 372. 36 Ibid. 278. 37 Rep. Cond. Framework Knitters, 126. 38 Tbid. 39 Ibid. 126-7. 40 rst App. to Rep. Cond. Framework Knitters, 386, 388. 41 Ibid.391. 42 Ibid. 393. 43 Ibid. 370. 14 ofgi ‘2 Jo omy peordAy v -zyS2y “OFgI UI payUSAUT sy YSIYM s[pseu Burj9e-jJas Io YOR] OY} YIIM sawed JO IayPU Js1Y oY ‘1a}sedIa"T JO puasumo T, May ey Aq epeur Ayqrssod ‘auryoeu appeou-yoqyY Ayiva ue s2.1Hay “OOgI*I ailYsiaysao1a'T OUT payiodum saquinu oie] ve Jo suo $o6L1 -y ‘Auoxeg ‘eyUEey}OY 3e PEysEY “WH “OD 4q epeut 7/97 SHINWYY ONIMOOLS dauH [, Sa tscnedaooatitis - il eentaet ecererareieenennemnneeneeemeettll INDUSTRIES wheel and so deprived the women folk of the latter occupation.44 “Thomas Briers of Shepshed deposed that 50 years before he knew of only one woman in the parish to work in a frame but for a number of years there had been an increase in women framework-knitters.45 Young single women as well as married women appear to have quite com- monly worked the frames in the village of Wood- house Eaves.4® So it was at Barwell also,47 but at Loughborough there were no great numbers working the frames, though experiments were being made at this time in withdrawing the seam- ing from the domestic hearth and assembling under one roof 40 to 50 girls to do this work under a supervisor.48 In Leicester borough many frames were worked by women in most branches of the trade but more particularly in the glove branch.49 In the second half of the 19th century the number of women employees increased to such an extent that we find in the first quarter of the 20th century the ratio of women to men in the hosiery trade is 3 to 1. According to the Census Returns of 1931 of those engaged in the industry throughout England and Wales 73-66 per cent. were women and 26-34 per cent. men.5° Thirty years earlier the proportion was much the same, there being in 1901 only 29-1 per cent. men to 70:9 per cent. women.5! In Leicestershire the proportions were roughly the same as for the country at large. In county and borough in 1931 women numbered 71-8 per cent. and men 28-2 per cent.5? Excluding the borough we find that over the county the proportion of men to women was only 1 to 2.53 Eight years later the proportions were still roughly the same; for an analysis of the numbers of persons in insured employment in July 1939 reveals that for the county and city 74-2 per cent. were women and 25-8 per cent. men, or, excluding the city, women numbered 11,263 and micn. 5,51 3.>* Within the different hosiery areas in the county the ratios varied. In the Hinckley district men and women employees were more evenly balanced; 43 per cent. were men and 57 per cent. women. In Shepshed the proportion of women operatives was slightly larger, 58-4. per cent. women to 41-6 44 rst App. to Rep. Cond. Framework Knitters, 183. 5 Ibid. 311. 46 Ibid. 436. 47 Ibid. 395. 48 Ibid. 405. 49 Ibid. 17. In Barrow upon Soar, which possessed about 250 frames, there were very few females em- _ ployed, but in nearby Sileby with about 500 frames there were many more: ibid. 430. 50 Census, 1931: Industrial Tables, p. 4. 51 Ibid. pp. 712-13. 52 Ibid. p. 76. 53 Tbid. 54 Ex inf. Min. Labour, N. Midlands Region. 55 These proportions are based on Census, 1931: Industrial Tables, pp. 233-5. A similar analysis cannot be made of the figures of persons insured against un- employment in the hosiery trade in July 1939, as these figures are subdivided according to exchanges which cannot be equated in all instances with the geographical areas on which the census returns are based. oo ) per cent. men; but in the Loughborough district the number of women employees was nearly three times as great as the men.55 This increase in the number of women em- ployed in the trade seems to have been due largely to improvements to the frame, especially to the application of a rotary movement, first by means of a handle and later by mechanical power. ‘Though there was no lack of inventive skill in modifying the stocking-frame,5® the hosiery in- dustry in the mid-19th century was barely touched by steam power which had revolutionized other industries. In 1816 Isambard Brunel invented a circular knitter which produced a seamless knitted tube, but experiments were not made with these machines until 30 years later.s57 “These were doubtless the machines which Thomas Collins of Belgrave Gate, Leicester, had in his shop, where there were 34 rotary frames in 1845, 14 of which at least were worked by women. ‘You have nothing to do but to turn the handle by the hand, and any boy or girl can turn those frames, if there is any one to look after them to see that they work rightly’.58 The traditional frame was heavy and laborious for a woman to work but when William Cotton of the firm of Warner & Cartwright, Loughborough, successfully solved by 1864 the difficulties of applying power to the frame the burden was lightened.59 In 1931 more than 75 per cent. of the 19,000 actually employed on the frames and machines in Leicester and Leicester- shire were women.®° Cotton’s patent frame and the circular knitter were the most important factors which turned the hosiery industry from the domestic system to the factory system. Nevertheless, experiments had been made in bringing the hand frames from the home into shops or ‘factories’, as contemporaries called them, during the years immediately preced- ing the Commission of Inquiry of 1845. Accord- ing to Thomas Smith, a framework-knitter of 25 years’ standing, who had moved from Hinckley into the glove branch at Leicester, a shop of 8 frames was considered large in his younger days but in recent years shops to house 40 or 50 frames had been built.6t “There is’, says William Clarke 56 See above, p. 5, nN. 10. 57 Felkin, Hosiery and Lace Mftures. 496-7; J. H. Clapham, Econ. Hist. Mod. Brit. ii, 33. 58 rst App. to Rep. Cond. Framework Knitters, 138. 59 J. Deakin, Loughborough in the 19th Cent. 36. 60 Census, 1931 Occupational Tables, p. 254: 18,675 hosiery frame-tenters and machine-knitters. These 2 terms seem to comprehend all who work the various types of machines. In 1892 Jas. Holmes, President of the Midland Counties Hosiery Federation, giving evidence before the Royal Com. on Labour, stated that women worked the linking and stitching machines but not the frames, which were worked by men: [C. 6795— vi] questions 12687—-8 H.C. (1892), xxxvi (2). This is hardly a complete picture in view of the evidence already quoted. 61 rst App. to Rep. Cond. Framework Knitters, [618] ps 55 flC.(1845)5 xv. A HISTORY OF LEICESTERSHIRE of Leicester, ‘a great deal more shopping now than there used to be when there was more wrought hose made. There used not to be one- quarter of the wide frames 20 or 30 years ago that there are now, and now they get into very large shops. Some 20 or 30 and more than that one man will hold. I never used to know a man to hold above 3 or 4 or 4 or § frames.’6 These larger shops were, however, limited to the borough of Leicester. At Hinckley Edward Kem Jarvis experimented with a large factory, in which neither frame rent nor standing charges were made, as was customary in the small shops, but his project failed owing to the opposition of the Hinckley framework-knitters to the regular rou- tine which factory discipline required.63 At Loughborough John Ward worked in the patent shirt branch; the frames for making these goods were not allowed into the workers’ homes and Ward’s employer had a factory of sixteen frames of this type.6* But the hands employed by the Loughborough firm of Warner, Cartwright, & Warner worked mostly in their own homes or in small shops. None of the shops owned by this firm which were engaged in wrought hose con- tained more than 8 frames.°5 It seems that be- cause the rural industry was almost exclusively engaged on the traditional wrought hose made on the narrow-frame experiments in large concen- trations of frames were not made. The small shop with its modest number of frames was the rule in the country districts.% It was in Loughborough about 1840 that Messrs. Cartwright & Warner opened the first power-driven factory in Leicestershire. “They used steam power to drive the frames engaged in the shirt branch of the trade.67 Five years later Paget of Loughborough turned the Zouch Mills into a hosiery factory by installing steam-driven rotary frames for making caps, shirts, and straight- down hose.68 Steam power was not applied to the frames in the Hinckley district until 1855 when ‘Thomas Payne built a factory in Wood Street, 62 rst App. to Rep. Cond. Framework Knitters, 33. 63 Ibid. 210. 64 Ibid. 400. 65 Ibid. 420. 6 Cf. Earl Shilton: John Homer, manufacturer there —the frames he employs are in the houses of the work- people; ‘the factory system is not in operation here at all’: ibid. 303. Mountsorrel: Ric. Jarratt, framework- knitter—frames ‘generally speaking, in small shops’: ibid. 432. Thornton: Nathaniel Mason, framework- knitter, formerly had a shop of 7 frames: ibid. 392. Shepshed: Thomas Briers, framework-knitter, had a shop of 7 or 8 frames: ibid. 311, and Wm. Thurman, framework-knitter, also possessed a shop of 7 frames: ibid. 313. Saddington: Thomas Bryant, framework- knitter, worked for Mr. Bailiff of Saddington in his shop of 7 frames: ibid. 376. 67 Thid. 394. 68 Ibid. 404-5. 69 Pickering, Cradle and Home of Hosiery Trade, 49. 70 Ret. of Manufacturing Establishments, H.C. 440, p- 12 (1871), lxii. a Hinckley.69 The move into factories was, indeed, very slow. In 1871 there were only seventy-four hosiery factories in the county and borough.7° In the last quarter of the 19th century several factors assisted the change-over to the factory system. Frame rents, which had been so strong a vested interest in the rural areas for both manu- facturers and middlemen in the first half of the 1gth century, at first retarded the drift to the factories. But as more power-driven factories were opened speculation in the rents of hand frames became less attractive and frame rents were finally abolished by statute in 1874.7! Even more crush- ing than the abolition of frame rents was the blow dealt by the Education Act of 1870, especially after 1876 when education between the ages of 5 and 14 was made compulsory. For now the hosiery trade was deprived of its child labour which had inevitably flourished when the industry was centred on the cottage home and which in consequence had proved a most powerful factor in sustaining the domestic system.72 Lastly, there were the advantages of a stronger trade union- ism which the factories had made possible and which resulted in better conditions for the fac- tory hands than for the domestic framework- knitters.73 We now find factories appearing in the villages as well as in the larger centres such as Hinckley and Loughborough. By 1894 in the Hinckley district there were over twenty factories in Hinck- ley itself and one in the nearby village of Stoke Golding.74 In the Loughborough area there were two hosiery factories in Kegworth, and the villages of Hathern and Rothley each possessed a factory erected in 1887.75 In Loughborough itself Cart- wright & Warner’s factory at this time was em- ploying over a thousand hands and, in addition, there were the large factories run by the Notting- ham Manufacturing Company and Messrs. I. and R. Morley.7¢ In the hosiery area south of Leicester power-driven frames had appeared alongside the hand frames in Blaby; and at Fleckney there were 71 Hosiery Manufacture (Wages) Act, 1874, 37 & 38 Vic. c. 48. When a Parl. Cttee. in 1854 recommended a Bill for the abolition of frame rents the Ho. rejected it. The gradual, though slow, change-over meant that the problem of frame rents solved itself. See F. A. Wells, Brit. Hosiery Trade, 147, 158-9. 72 In Hinckley attendance at the elementary schools doubled when girls were allowed to bring seaming to school in the afternoon: Wells, op. cit. 156. 73 We have already observed the slight progress which trade unionism made whilst the hosiery industry was located in the home. The task proved easier as the industry changed over to factory production, e.g. in the factories at Nott. the unions were able to obtain a 54-hour week: Wells, op. cit. 155. 74 Wright, Dir. Leic. (1894), 466 (Hinckley); ibid. (1888), 564 (Stoke Golding). 75 Ibid. (1894), 479 (Kegworth); 464 (Hathern), 383 (Rothley). 76 Tbid. 491. 16 INDUSTRIES LEICESTERSHIRE —— BAG -HOSIERS AND a : a ‘ay HOSIERY MANUFACTURERS 1851 — 1900 s 5 . a” a ® z HOSIERY FIRMS IN 1932 ” . F x st ® a B x o a e Pd + + HOSIERY MANUFACTURERS ai Cua, a é + BAG —- HOSIERS iN o + A HOSIERY FIRMS ” *o, A A ot »” ‘ t? + a ST enscita ++ HKEGWORTH 2 * x go DONINGTON guserma ALAS $. :