histories and other works no encouragement is offered to modern designers. Their work, if only in a few instances, is by no means negligible. Chippendale, in the Dedication of the third edition of his 'Director' to the Earl of Northumberland, refers to that nobleman's 'intimate acquaintance with all these arts and sciences that tend to perfect and adorn life' and his 'well-known disposition to promote them.' That was an age when the civilising influence of beautiful surroundings was being first fully realised. The frequent publication of old designs has no doubt helped to improve taste in the present century; but, on the other hand, it has also done much to exaggerate the importance of a fashion which is observed for its own sake, and, by lines of least resistance, to preserve that aspect of civilisation which merely implies material convenience. Except for the small following enjoyed by the late Ernest Gimson and one or two firms, it is simply worth no man's while to make designs for furniture that are not definitely and obviously based upon old ones. Until comparatively recent years there was little to be said for new designs, and in the history of furniture the monstrosities which came at the end of the 19th century under the name of l'art nouveau scarcely deserve more attention than the current hybrid rubbish which is associated-not always fairly-with the hire-purchase' system of payment. Some of the modern furniture designed and built by a few pioneers is simple, unpretentious, admirably constructed, and perfectly suited to present needs. It might well be the groundwork of a new and valuable 'period,' such as we have lacked since the days of Hepplewhite and Sheraton; but just now, beyond the encouragement of a few eccentrics, there is little hope of its development.

BOHUN LYNCH,

Art. 8.-THE GLASGOW OUTRAGES, 1820-25.

IN the year 1820 the cotton-spinners of Glasgow and its neighbourhood formed themselves into a secret society, the chief object of which was to raise the rate of wages and regulate the conditions of labour in the cotton-mills. The society was secret because it was illegal. The Combination Laws of 1799-1800 were still in force, and this trade union, like others, came under the operation of these laws as a conspiracy in restraint of trade,' while its members were liable to imprisonment with hard labour for two months. In Scotland, however -or at least in the counties of Renfrew and Lanark-it was not customary to enforce the laws against trade unions in general. Between 1800 and 1820 many such societies had existed, without objection from the mastermanufacturers or interference from the magistrates. It was only when the members of the Union resorted to violence that the civil authorities intervened; and cases of this sort had occurred only twice during this periodthat of the Renfrew Weavers' Union in 1812-14, and that of the Calico-Printers' Union in 1814. The new Cotton-Spinners' Union, however, soon drew general attention by a series of acts of violence far exceeding anything that had gone before.

The cotton-spinners were at this time the aristocracy of labour. The trade was young and healthy, expanding every year. The spinners' wages were lower in Scotland than in England, and varied according to district; but they were, for the times, good. In the Glasgow district they were from 20s. to 30s. a week, according to the skill and industry of the workman. These rates were lordly compared with those of the wretched handloom-weavers, who toiled night and day for 88. or 58. weekly; or with those of the miners in south-west England, who earned from 188. to 30s., but were paid largely in truck. Moreover, the cottonspinner was in a peculiarly favoured position, for the textile trades were then the only trades where the workmen were specially protected by law. It is true that Sir Robert Peel's two Acts, of 1802 and 1819, were intended for the protection of children only; but the limitation of children's hours involved in practice the

same limitation for the adult worker; and the provisions respecting cleanliness and ventilation were equally beneficial to all. The two Acts were not always observed; but they were not without influence. Generally speaking, the cotton-spinner worked from twelve to thirteen hours a day, knocking off a few hours earlier on Saturday, though he might be forced, when trade was booming, to work overtime up to seventeen or eighteen hours a day.

It was not an ideal position, but it was better than that of most contemporary labourers. It is, however, the best-paid trades which are most successful in agitation: the sweated worker is too poor to finance a strike, and too broken-spirited to hope for the future. Even in the ranks of the cotton-trade itself this was exemplified. The Union consisted of spinners-adult males -only. The women carders with their 8s. weekly, the hapless little piecers with their 2s. 6d., were not represented in it, and reaped no profit from its transactions. Indeed, they had all to lose and nothing to gain. Every spinner who struck threw from five to seven other hands out of employment; and these hands, not being members of the Union, drew no strike pay, and were at once reduced to the extremity of want.

The society, according to the confession of one of its members, John Kean, numbered about 800. It was divided into three districts, each with its own committee, which appointed two delegates to report to the central committee. The central committee consisted of three men, who were changed every two months, and whose identity was only known to the district committees. They met, usually at some inn or public-house, once a week, on Saturday night. The closest secrecy enveloped their proceedings. New members were introduced, we may guess, by some elaborate ceremonial similar to that used in the English trade unions-the candidate usually blind-folded, and the leaders wearing masks and official robes of a terrifying character. The oath imposed on members has been preserved, and runs thus:

'I, A. B., do voluntarily swear in the awful presence of Almighty God, and before these witnesses, that I will execute as far as in me lies every task or injunction which the majority

of my brethren may impose on me, as the chastisement of knobs (knobsticks' blacklegs), the assassination of oppressive and tyrannical masters or the demolition of shops deemed incorrigible, and I will also cheerfully contribute to the support of such of my brethren as shall lose their work in consequence of their exertions against tyranny or renounce it in resistance to a reduction of wages. And I do further swear never to divulge the form of this obligation, unless I shall have been duly authorised and appointed to administer the same to persons making application for admission, or to persons constrained to become members of our fraternity.'

Some people may hesitate to believe that British workmen, barely a hundred years ago, consented to take such an oath as this; but an oath whose terms were almost identical with these was at the same time in use among the English cotton-workers, two copies of which, obtained from two separate sources, are preserved in the records of the Home Office. The form of the Scottish oath was communicated to Mr William Rose Robinson, Sheriff-depute of Lanark, in 1825, by members of the Union. It was laid by him before the Parliamentary Committee on the Combination Laws in that year, but the names of the informants were not divulged, for their lives would have been endangered. The Union did not indulge in vain threats.

The Glasgow Union was certainly led by able men, for its first steps were entirely successful. There was no general strike-the various firms of cotton-manufacturers were attacked separately, one after the other; and one after the other gave way, some immediately, some after a brief resistance. The rate of wages in Glasgow was probably even then higher than that of the surrounding districts; it soon became greatly superior. Most of the masters could afford to raise their men's wages without real loss; and such demands alone would probably have caused but little resentment and ill-feeling; but the Union, emboldened by success, proceeded to interfere with the management of the works in a manner that soon proved intolerably irritating. Here, for example, are the demands presented to Mr Henry Houldsworth of Anderston, on April 7, 1823, by his workmen :

'We wish all fines to be entirely done away with.' (These fines were for drunkenness, and were paid by the masters

6

into the men's sick fund.) We entreat you to take these two men back to their wheels, as we see no other man will take them, and we hope it will prove better for you and us both.' (The two men had been dismissed, after warning, for drunkenness.) 'We have too many masters, therefore we insist on you to give the power to one man, and we will abide by him, if reasonable. We consider that Mr Dyson and James Fisher are too vigilant by impairing on the general part of the men, therefore we wish you to give them a reprimand before us. We consider Mr Russell to be no judge of his business, therefore we insist on you to turn him off and get a man who is a judge of his business. We insist that you will make no examples on this occasion, as we are all involved alike and will stick to each other if done. Lastly, we insist that you will admit no indifferent characters to work among us, and that John Mackenzie Phillips may not be admitted with us in future.'

*

John Mackenzie Phillips was a 'knob.' We shall hear more of him later. This nagging interference was more than any master could endure. Illfeeling arose, and rapidly increased; and the Union, encouraged by its long immunity, and by the failure of all attempts to detect its headquarters, became more daring than ever. The best way to make its methods. clear is to relate some typical incidents, selected from the evidence laid before the Committee of 1825 on the Combination Laws, and from a Memorial submitted by the Glasgow manufacturers to the Home Secretary, and preserved among the Home Office Papers. †

During the years 1820-22, industrial conditions were eminently suitable for a trial of strength between masters and men. Prices of all kinds were very low, and demand correspondingly great. Everywhere workmen were in full work, and unemployment was almost unknown. The rate of profits was exceedingly low Large-scale manufacturers were doing well, the extent of the turn-over compensating for the low rate of interest. The small master, however, was in a much

* Home Office Records, H.O, 40. 18. Peel, April 19, 1823.

Mr Houldsworth to Mr Secretary

Memorial by the Proprietors of

+ Home Office Records, H.O. 40. 19. the Corton Works of Glasgow, April 7, 1823. Also Report of the Select Committee on the Combination Laws, 1825, pp. 318 ff.; 327 ff.; 331 ff.