monthly subscription was Is. 3d., in which year the balance in hand was 2,200l.; this sum was spent in building almshouses for old members. This Society was so well organised and powerful, and its rules so stringent, that a master in resisting its dictates was ruined, and had to make a public apology to the men in the newspapers.

§ 55. Among the hatters, trade-societies existed at an early date. Besides being under 5 Elizabeth, c. 4, the hat trade was regulated by 8 Elizabeth, and I James I. which confirmed the provisions of the statute of apprentices expressly for that trade. This industry was carried on early in the eighteenth century by sub-contractors, called 'little masters,' who received the materials from the master-manufacturers, and got them worked up by apprentices only. This led to combinations among the journeymen, which from 1772 became extremely vigorous, their objects being to maintain the existing law, and to protect the interests of the operatives. The Society was regulated by statutes and bye-laws, all the workmen in the trade belonged to it, the contributions were twopence weekly. When the employers attempted to give the work to sub-contractors, the men by strikes forced them to take it back. As the workmen prevented the masters from employing an excessive number of apprentices, the masters petitioned Parliament in 1777 for the repeal of the legal restrictions as to apprentices, and for the prohibition of combinations of journeymen. Both were granted by 17 George III. c. 55, but all the restrictions were not repealed, for every master hatter was to employ one journeyman for every apprentice.

§ 56. In the tailors' trade combinations also existed, early in the eighteenth century, as by 7 George I. c. 13, they were forbidden. It is probable that these

arose in consequence of the legal regulations as to wages by the justices of the peace, being discontinued, for the preamble of the 8th of George III. c. 17, speaks of those who, by many subtle devices,' tried to evade the regulations of wages by the justices according to the 7th of George I. c. 13, by which words masters are evidently meant, for the devices of the workmen would have been simply strikes.

PART III.—Trades incorporated by charter.

$ 57. The trade of framework-knitting was not established in the year of the 5th of Elizabeth, and therefore did not come under the regulations of that statute, until 1663 when Charles II. incorporated 'several persons by the name of master, warden, assistants, and society, of the art and mystery of framework knitters, of the cities of London and Westminster, in the kingdom of England and dominion of Wales, for ever, with power to exercise their jurisdiction throughout England and Wales; and from time to time to make bye-laws for the regulation of the said business of framework knitting, and to punish persons who should offend against such bye-laws.' By section 33 of the charter the master was directed to enforce the statute of the 5th of Elizabeth, c. 4, or any other statute as respects apprentices and the occupations of the trade.' But the execution of the ordinances of this charter depended upon the masters and wardens of the company, who were the employers, and consequently they were not of the same effect ast they would have been if the statute of apprentices had directly applied to the trade. As early as the beginning of the eighteenth century, the masters employed an unlimited number of apprentices, often in the proportion of ten or more to one journeyman: and one master is

H

mentioned who for thirty years had employed constantly twenty-five apprentices to one journeyman. This abuse of power, from the want of fixed legal restrictions, cannot cause surprise, for besides the less wages paid to an apprentice, the parish authorities often paid bounties to the amount of 51. for every boy taken from the workhouse.

§ 58. By this system the adult workers, immediately after the expiration of their apprenticeship, fell into deep misery. In 1710 they therefore petitioned the company to carry out the regulations of the charter with regard to apprentices, but the company refused.

§ 59. This was followed by a riot of the workmen, who destroyed about 100 frames, threw them out of the windows, and thrashed the opposing masters and their apprentices. Upon this, the frightened masters gave in, and promised to observe for the future the ordinances of the charter with regard to apprentices. Notwithstanding this promise, the system of taking parish apprentices was continued until the trade was so overstocked with journeymen without employment, that the most serious revolts ensued. This led in 1727 to the passing of an Act prohibiting, under penalty of death, the breaking of frames, which was the men's chief method of revenging themselves on their masters.

§ 60. The overstocking of the trade with parish apprentices who had served their term, brought them, in the years 1740 to 1750, near to starvation. There was often only one coat in a shop, which was worn by each in turn, as he went out from its precincts; so that one, Moss, a Northamptonshire master, refused to employ a man who possessed a good coat, declaring that the best workmen were only to be found in ragged ones.'

§ 61. On May 22, 1745, the company ordained new

bye-laws, which were confirmed by the Lord Chancellor, in accordance with the provisions of 19 Henry VII. c. 7, enacting once more the old restrictions as to apprentices. These bye-laws contain the first direct intimation of the practice, which was afterwards to bring such infinite misery on the workmen, namely, of the owners of frames, though they did not themselves exercise the trade, letting the frames out on hire. The company, however, did nothing further than attempt to enforce its authority throughout the country, in favour of the London employers.

§ 62. As this trade was now being removed from London to Nottingham, the company sent its deputies there to maintain its privileges, but the manufacturers refused to acknowledge its authority. These employers, for the most part, had not served a legal apprenticeship, they also employed journeymen who had not done so, and who did not belong to the company, and they employed a large number of women and children; of two employers, we are told, that one worked with twenty-three, the other with forty-nine apprentices, without employing any journeymen. The company, relying on its ordinances confirmed by the Lord Chancellor, threatened to enforce the submission of the masters at law. But its former conduct towards the petitions of the journeymen in 1710, and its own degeneracy, were revenged upon itself. The retort on it was, that its own members did not maintain the seven years' apprenticeship, as a qualification for trade, and that instead of preventing frauds, they committed them themselves. The fact was, their whole proceeding was nothing but a trick, the outgrowth of envy; the company having entirely lost all influence with the manufacturers.

§ 63. The company then addressed a special appeal to the men, asked them to join, made the terms of

entrance easier, promised to re-establish the old order of things, and designated themselves the true friends of the workmen, and called the other employers their enemies. The journeymen took the bait, and hailed with joy the proceedings of the company. The master manufacturers being threatened with lawsuits, petitioned Parliament, and accused the company of ruining trade by its monopolies. As Parliament was of the same opinion, the company became unable legally to enforce its byelaws, and thenceforth they ceased to exercise any real influence over the trade.

§ 64. The enormous increase of framework-knitting from 1750 to 1780, did not much profit the journeymen, for the trade suffered under the constant influx of boys, girls, and non-apprenticed workmen. These abuses had hitherto produced only violent transitory revolts, but when all hope of tangible help from the company had been finally destroyed, the workmen formed a tradeunion, called the Stocking-makers Association for Mutual Protection, in the midland counties of England, for the purpose of making regulations as to apprentices, as legal restrictions were no longer binding. This society soon became so powerful, that in Nottingham it greatly influenced the elections for Parliament.

$ 65. In 1778 Mr. Abel Smith was returned by them without opposition, in celebration of which the members of this association marched in procession before his chair, accompanied by representatives of the London framework-knitters company. This formerly authoritative body had thus another opportunity given them to have rendered themselves useful, by the adoption of wise and timely measures, between the master hosiers and their discontented workmen. The imposition of high rents, exacted for the use of frames, and other charges, had not as yet settled into a legalised custom;