288471

This electronic thesis or dissertation has been
downloaded from Explore Bristol Research,

http://research-information.bristol.ac.uk
Author:
Davies, Julian Paul
Title:
Artisans and the city : a social history of Bristol's shoemakers and tailors, 1770-1800
General rights
The copyright of this thesis rests with the author, unless otherwise identified in the body of the thesis, and no quotation from it or information
derived from it may be published without proper acknowledgement. It is permitted to use and duplicate this work only for personal and noncommercial research, study or criticism/review. You must obtain prior written consent from the author for any other use. It is not permitted to
supply the whole or part of this thesis to any other person or to post the same on any website or other online location without the prior written
consent of the author.
Take down policy
Some pages of this thesis may have been removed for copyright restrictions prior to it having been deposited in Explore Bristol Research.
However, if you have discovered material within the thesis that you believe is unlawful e.g. breaches copyright, (either yours or that of a third
party) or any other law, including but not limited to those relating to patent, trademark, confidentiality, data protection, obscenity, defamation,
libel, then please contact: open-access@bristol.ac.uk and include the following information in your message:
Your contact details
Bibliographic details for the item, including a URL
An outline of the nature of the complaint
On receipt of your message the Open Access team will immediately investigate your claim, make an initial judgement of the validity of the
claim, and withdraw the item in question from public view.
ARTISANS AND THE CITY: A SOCIAL HISTORY OF BRISTOL'S

SHOEMAKERS AND TAILORS, 1770-1800
by
JULIAN PAUL DAVIES
A thesis submitted to the Faculty of Arts

of the University of Bristol for the degreeof
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Historical Studies

Faculty of Arts
The University of Bristol
June 2003
Words (text only): 71,652
'
ABSTRACT
This study looks at Bristol artisansin the late eighteenthcentury in considerable

depth, comparedto generic studiesof English artisansconductedin the past. The
into
to
trace
that
trade
a mass
compunction
evolved
a nascent
union movement
movement of the latter nineteenthcentury, a common theme in previous studies,has
been eschewed.Such an approachfails to locate and explain the purpose of labour
agitation within that society, a concept that should be to the fore of any study, as
become
in
hardly
to
their
were
a
artisanswere
concernedwith what
organisations
hundred years time. It is therefore vital to study workers within their own specific
context of spaceand time, for while the national and even international context is
useful, an over-reliance on uniform processescan obscureas much as it reveals.A
casestudy can therefore establishan exact context in which artisanswent to work,
related to their employers (and each other), engagedwith other sections of the local
populace, and so on. This study therefore utilises a holistic approach,in order to
provide a well-balanced socio-economicpicture of the artisan experiencein this
period. While this approachwill balancethe dispute-centredbias of previous studies,
it will also provide a greaterunderstandingof the social milieu from which disputes
arose.Bristol and its statusas a regional metropolis in the eighteenth century offers
the perfect opportunity to undertakean in-depth analysis of the two trades in question,
as surprisingly little is known of eighteenth-centuryshoemakersand tailors beyond
the confines of London.
Dedication and acknowledgements

I would like to thank both the University of Bristol and the Arts and Humanities
ResearchBoard (AHRB) for awarding scholarships,without which this project would
have been impossible to fulfil. I would also like to thank Dr. Kirsty Reid and Dr.
Richard Sheldon for providing an informed, considered,and thoughtful level of
supervision that has been invaluable. Further thanks are due to Richard Sheldon for
the many times he has offered me his time, often without any prior arrangement.I am
also grateful to the support provided by staff at the Bristol ReferenceLibrary, within
Bristol Central Library, and to that provided by the University's own Arts and Social
SciencesLibrary.
I also owe a huge debt to the love, patience,and understandingshown to me during
the course of this project by Diane, my partner. Shenot only provided the willing ear
of a fellow history postgraduate,but most importantly provided unceasing
encouragementat times when my own enthusiasmfor the project reachedits
inevitable low points. This thesis is dedicatedto her.
AUTHOR'S DECLARATION
I declarethat the work in this dissertationwas carried out in accordancewith the
Regulations of the University of Bristol. The work is original except where indicated
by special referencein the text and no part of the dissertationhas been submitted for
any other degree.Any views expressedin the dissertationare those of the author and
in no way representthose of the University of Bristol. The dissertation has not been
presentedto any other University for examination either in the United Kingdom or
overseas.
SIGNED:
DATE:
7/D3
CONTENTS
PAGE
Introduction: Perspectives of Labour History
Part One: Production and the Labour Force
18
Chapter 1: Production and Marketing in the Shoemaking and

Tailoring Trades of Bristol, 1769-1800
19
Chapter 2: The Division of Labour, Gender and Mobility in the

Bristol Shoemaking and Tailoring Trades, 1770-1800
43
Part Two: Living and Working Conditions
70
Chapter 3: The Geography of Work, Housing, and Occupational

Illness among Bristol's Shoemakers and Tailors, 1770-1800
71
Chapter 4: Diet, the Cost of Living and Real Wages in Bristol, 1769-1799
107
Part Three: Agency: Artisans and the `Public Sphere'
141
Chapter 5: Negotiating the Public Sphere, The 'Rhetoric of Need' and Wage
Bargaining in Bristol, 1770-1800
142
Chapter 6: Before the French Revolution: Artisans and Electoral Politics

in Bristol, 1774-1784
Conclusion
Bibliography
176
208
211
Page
Tables
20
Table 1:1- Shoemakers'Retail Adverts, 1769-1800
31
Table 1:2 - Tailors' Retail Adverts, 1769-1800
Table 2: 1- GenderBreakdown of Masters in Bristol's Garment Trades:
53
1775and 1794
Table 2:2 - Housesof Call used Bristol's JourneymenTailors, 1763-1796
56
Table 2:3 - Out-Voters as a Percentageof the Bristol-Electorate, Shoemaker60
Electorate, and Tailor-Electorate, 1754-1784
62
Table 2:4 - GeographicDistribution of the Bristol-Electorate, 1754-1784
62
Table 2:5 - GeographicDistribution of the Shoemaker-Electorate,1754-1784
62
Table 2: 6 - Geographic Distribution of the Tailor-Electorate, 1754-1784
Table 3: 1 - Average Distribution by Parish of all Bristol-voters, ShoemakerVoters, and Tailor-voters, 1754-1784,comparedto the 1801 Census 73
Table 3:2 - Distribution of Bristol-voters, Shoemaker-voters,and Tailor-voters
78
Between three areasof Bristol, 1754-1784
Table 3:3 - Distribution of Master Shoemakersand Tailors between three areas
of Bristol, 1775-1794
Table 3:4 - Shoemakersand Tailors as a proportion of the Bristol-resident

Electorate, 1754-1784
Table 3:5 JamesNew's Calculation of People per Dwelling in St. Philip and
Jacob, Bristol, 1781
Table 3:6 Sketchley's Calculations of Peopleper Dwelling in Bristol, 1775
Table 4: 1 - Average Grocery Expenditure of 78 labouring families in Southern
England, 1787-1793
Table 4:2 - Breakdown of Davies/Edensampleby GeographicalDistribution
and Family Size
Table 4: 3 - Best Estimate of Budget Weights for Bristol's Tailors
and Shoemakers
Table 4:4 Bristol Food Prices: Yearly Averages, 1769-1799
Table 4:5 Index of Prices (1), 1769-1799
-
Table4:6 - Index of Prices(2), 1769-1799
Table 4:7 Composite Cost of Living Index for Bristol, 1769-1799

Table 4: 8 - Wages of Bristol's JourneymenTailors, 1773-1796
Table4:9 - RealWagesof Bristol's JourneymenTailors, 1773-1796

Table5: 1 - Responseof Mastersto the PayClaimsof Bristol's
JourneymenTailorsandShoemakers
Table 5:2 - Trades affected by the 1792 Strike-Wave in terms of
Bristol's Artisan Sector
80
83
88
89
108
108
118
123
124
125
127
131
133
146
164
Table6:1 - Votesfor Candidatesin Bristol ParliamentaryElections,1774-1784 178

Table 6:2 - 1774 Election: Distribution of Voters per Candidate
Table 6:3 - 1781 Election: Distribution of Voters per Candidate
Table 6:4 - 1784 Election: Distribution of Votes per Candidate
184
184
184
out-voters that voted for each Candidate
187
Table6:5 - 1774Election:The Proportionof Bristol-residentvotersand

Table6:6 - 1781Election:The Proportionof Bristol-residentvotersand

Table 6:7 - 1774 Election: The Proportion of Bristol-resident voters and
187
187
Page
Table 6:8 - The Electorate: The Distribution of Votes betweenthe Whig and
Tory Party, 1774-1784
Table 6:9 - Shoemakers:The Distribution of Votes betweenthe Whig and
Table 6: 10 - Tailors: The Distribution of Votes betweenthe Whig and
Table 6: 11 - The Bristol Electorate: Distribution of Votes per Party in Three
Areas of Bristol, 1774-1784
Table 6: 12 - The Shoemakers:Distribution of Votes per Party in Three
Table 6: 13 - The Tailors: Distribution of Votes per Party in Three
Table 6: 14 - The Shoemakers:Distribution of `Plumper' and `Double' votes
per Party, 1774-1784
Table6: 15- The Tailors:Distributionof `Plumper'and `Double' votes

per Party, 1774-1784
Table 6: 16 - ExperiencedVoters as a Proportion of the Electorate,

1781 and 1784
Table 6: 17 - The Shoemakersand Tailors: Party Choices of Experienced
Voters, 1774-1784
190
190
190
194
195
195
198
198
201
202
Maps
Map 1- Average Distribution of Bristol's voters among Parishesin
Parliamentary Elections, 1754-1784
Map 2- Average Distribution of Bristol's Shoemaker-votersamong Parishesin
Map 3- Average Distribution of Bristol's Tailor-voters among Parishesin
75
76
77
Pictures
Picture 1- `St James'sBack' (1820) by Hugh O'Neill
Picture 2- `The bottom of High Street' (1826) by Thomas L Rowbotham
Picture 3- Illustration of Shoemakersat Work (1804)
Picture4- Illustrationof Tailors at Work (1806)
90
90
96
96
Graphs
Graph 1- A Comparison of the Composite Index and Wheat Index, 1769-1799
Graph 2- Price Index for Five Foodstuffs, 1769-1799
Graph 3-A Comparison of the Bristol Cost of Living Index with Phelps-Brown
and Hopkins (PBH), Schumpeter-Gilboy (SG), Feinstein (Fe), and
Tucker (Tu), 1769-1799
Graph 4- Real Wage Index for Bristol's JourneymenTailors, 1773-1796
Graph 5-A Comparison of the Real Wages of Bristol's Journeymen
Tailors (BJT), with Indexes compiled by Tucker (Tu), Feinstein (Fe),
and Schwarz (Sch), 1773-1796
128
129
130
134
135
INTRODUCTION:
PERSPECTIVES OF LABOUR HISTORY
Our only criterion of judgement should not be whether or not a man's actions are justified in the light of
subsequentevolution. After all, we are not at the end of social evolution ourselves.
(E.P.Thompson,
TheMakingof theEnglishWorkingClass(London,1963;1991edn.), p. 12.)
Forty years have now passedsince Edward Thompson issuedthis instruction and enthused
a generationof labour historians with his quest to rescuethe `poor stockinger' and other
'
from
`the
workers
enormouscondescensionof posterity'. Since then numerousstudies
have heededThompson's call and enriched our knowledge of artisansand their trades,
2
lives.
It is therefore reasonableto ask why a study of Bristol's
cultures and social
shoemakersand tailors is necessary,given the plethora of work on trades and strikes.
There are two main answersto this. Firstly, historians themselveshave drawn attention to
the need for more work on eighteenth-centuryunions and trades.Robert Malcolmson
commentsthat `little researchhas been conductedon industrial relations' in this period,
while John Stevensonarguesthat researchamong `local newspaperand court records will
3
to
the
add
picture' of trades and strikes. Likewise John Rule has conjectured that the
number of disputesto be found once `more time has been spent on the provincial presscan
hardly be guessed'. Newspapers,as will be seen,have indeed provided a fruitful sourceof
evidence.Furthermore, as Beverly Lemire has remarked, while `tailors have received
attention from labour and trade union historians', `many other aspectsof theseubiquitous
5
be
artisansremain to
addressed'.
Secondly, the majority of previous studies have been generalisedworks that have relied
heavily on linking evidence acrossa wide spectrumof time and place, in order to meet
various thematic criteria. By focusing on two trades in one locality over a thirty-year
period, between 1770 and 1800, some of the problems createdby over-generalisationcan
be avoided. While this study employs a thematic approach,an in-depth local study makes
it possible to collect evidencewithout the pressureof the need to meet a pre-ordained
range of thematic criteria. In this study the division of evidence into themeswas only
undertaken after the evidencewas collected, rather than for example having a research
remit for `strikes' or `food riots' and only collecting information on such events.The
researchprocesstherefore involved collecting many fragments of evidence relating to
Bristol's shoemakersand tailors, even when of an apparently trivial nature. This approach
enriched the study, taking it beyond an initially more narrow focus on unions and strikes,
by making it clear that strikes could not be fully
evaluatedwithout a broader understanding
of the ordinary artisanal lives from which they arose.In this sense,the study was
influenced by Rudolf Wissell, who stated long
as
ago as 1929 that documenting everyday
life was invaluable becauseòften a piece of cultural history is embodied in it which is of

incomparablevalue in understandingan earlier way of living, thinking and feeling'. 6
(1) Historiography
Much of the historiography of workers' associationsand strikes has long been influenced
by the teleological perspectivesof a `grand narrative' approach.The quest to chart union
action acrossa long time frame is either implicit or explicit in most labour studies.
Pioneerslike the Webbs, writing in the late nineteenthcentury, argued that the trade unions
of their own day originated in the organisationalpractices and outlook of `manualworkers'
in the eighteenthcentury.7 The main basis for this lay in their contention that woollen
workers, for example,possesseda horizontal form of consciousnesscomparedto the
`trade' outlook of town-basedartisans.8 The tendencyto link past labour actions with those
of the present is likewise evident in the more recent work of Anna Clark. Clark justified
her focus on gender relations in the early nineteenthcentury textile trades on the basis that
combinations in this period laid the `groundwork for the later trade union movement', as
nascentunions began to `createthe infrastructure for the working-class movement as a
9
whole'. Other historians have identified the eighteenthcentury as a turning point when
some forms of action were jettisoned in favour of the allegedly more sophisticatedoption
of union organisation.Eric Hobsbawm, for example, argued that the developmentof the
trade union movement was precededby a systemof `collective bargaining by riot', and
that the selective destruction of property by workers representeda 'traditional and
10
in
industrial
the eighteenthand early nineteenth centuries.
establishedpart of
conflict'
Similarly Stevensoncontendsthat workers increasingly began `to use industrial action as a
substitute for food rioting' towards the end of the eighteenthcentury, as `strikes and trade
union organisation' becamethe most `popular form of protest over wages and living
"
conditions'. Adrian Randall has critiqued such interpretations, arguing that they are
12
à
be
'sustained'.
products of modernisation of protest' theory that cannot
The apparentneed to searchfor òrigins' has taken some scholars even further back in
time. Numerous scholars have sought to account for the flourishing union activity of the
latter eighteenthcentury as being attributable to the decline in guild organisations.
Brentano, for example, assertedas early as 1870 that `trade unions are the successorsof the
old Guilds' on the basis that the former sought to uphold the protective labour statutesof
the Tudor period.13More recently, Chasehas argued that defence of apprenticeshiplaws
was so vital `to the concernsof the early trade unions that their emergencecorresponded
closely to the decline in effectivenessof the Statute'.14This study questions such links.
Researchhas failed to turn up any evidence that issuesof
apprenticeship or protective
2
labour legislation were concernsof Bristol's shoemakersand tailors in the yearsbetween

1770and 1800. Indeed, the last prosecution in Bristol under apprenticeshiplegislation
'5
in
baking
in
1772.
This work therefore supportsthe Webbs who stated
the
trade
occurred
that `neither in Bristol nor in Preston' or any other urban centre had they `beenable to
trace the slightest connection betweenthe slowly dying gilds and the upstarting Trade
Unions'. '6 The only possible connection that can exist lies in the general context. For there
would appearto be a correlation betweena national decline in the tailors' and shoemakers'
guilds between 1725 and 1750,and an upsurgein disputesin these sectorsin late
"
Bristol,
be
in
Chapter
Five.
eighteenth-century
as will
seen
Teleological approacheshave perhapsreceived a boost from research,showing that the
classic notion of an Ìndustrial Revolution' in which quickening economic growth led to a
concomitant growth in mechanisedproduction and factory labour, was not particularly
'8
accurate. According to Friedrich Lenger, for example, factory production only became
important in shoemaking `during the third quarter of the nineteenth century. 19Indeed,
becausethis was also the casein many other trades,Lenger dateswhat he terms the
àrtisanal phaseof the labour movement' as spanningthe period from the late eighteenthto
20
Germany
United
in
Such
States.
England,
France,
the mid-nineteenth centuries
and the
views are strengthenedby Thompson's claim that even as late as 1830 the `characteristic
industrial worker' worked not in a mill or factory but in à small workshop or in his own
home' 21The fact that industrial production relied so heavily on artisanal modesof
.
production until the mid-nineteenth century, has led scholarssuch as Chase,Lis and Soly,
to argue that the objectives of `many pre-industrial journeymen associations' were not
22
different
from
their nineteenth-centurycounterparts
essentially
The ideathat associations

industrialisation
been
journeymen
flourished
has
under
of
further erodedby JohnRule's argumentthat it wasthe `separationof labourandcapital'
rather than industrialisation that provided the basis `for the emergenceof the perception of
23
labour
distinct
interest'.
On the basis that by 1800 only 5 per cent of the `working-class
a
population of London' were `self-employed' Rule reasonsthat the `class of permanent
journeymen in urban tradeswas very large'. 24However, wage labour was hardly new to
eighteenth-centurysociety. Clarkson notes that `wage-earnerswere numerous' in early
sixteenth-century England, while the growth of wage labour in the eighteenth century was
evident in the fact that by 180045 per cent of the national income was attributed to
25
wages. Meanwhile, Lis and Soly trace the emergenceof waged labour as far back as the
thirteenth century, concluding that the eighteenth century merely marked the `culmination
different
by
for
in
been
had
tactics
centuries
very
use
of strategiesand
which
already
6
groups of workers'.
However, while there is somevalue in being able to establishthat labour agitation can be
traced much further back than the period of the Ìndustrial Revolution', this doesnot
in
labour
tell
agitation a particular place and
necessarily
us very much about the role of
time. It is therefore crucial to establishan exact context for any specific study. This study
therefore supportsThompson's notion that people's actions `were valid in terms of their
own experience', and that knowledge of subsequentdevelopmentsshould not obscureour
interpretation of the behaviour of historical actors.27Nevertheless,the benefit of hindsight
does suggestthat the eighteenthcentury provided many instancesof workers' actions, and
thus proffering fruitful lines of enquiry, it is important to establish the context in which
action occurred.
While labour action in the eighteenthcentury may not have been an everyday occurrence,
it was far from a rarity. Dobson has provided a count of 383 labour disputesbetween 1717
and 1800, a figure which itself testifies to the relatively widespread occurrenceof
28
dispute'
describes
ìndustrial
in
Rule
the
the
as
combination activity
eighteenthcentury.
`the characteristic form of conflict' among artisans and remarks that while scholarsonce
29
talked of 'dozens' of eighteenth-centurydisputes `they now must accept hundreds'.
Likewise Sonenscher'reportsthat it is possible to locate òver 500 disputes in the French
30
Revolution'
between
trades
the mid-seventeenthcentury and the early years of the
However, the historical evidence has been less illuminating as to the forms of organisation
`combinations'
illegal
doubt
due
to
the
of
and the
nature
underpinning such actions, no
31
fullyfrom
leaders
Evidence
the
eighteenth
century
of
secrecyrequired among strike
.
fledged trade unions is extremely rare. As a result, modern historians have eschewedthe
Webbs' focus upon trade unions as à continuous associationof wage-earnersfor the
32
lives'.
improving
Dobson, for
the conditions of their working
purpose of maintaining or
example, arguesthat `the most consistently successfulbargainerswere those with a
permanentbase for continuous association', often basedaround the pub ('house of call'),
while Rule has assertedthat an informal continuity resided within `the workplace or village
33
in
forms.
Rule notes that specific organisations
club' rather than outwardly organisational
were not necessarilyrequired since workers `preservedin experienceand tradition a
sufficient knowledge of possible forms of action', while Thompson remarked that while
`no record of continuous organization' may exist, there was `certainly a continuous
tradition of trade union activity throughout the (eighteenth) century'. 34Tramping networks,
basedaround pubs known as `housesof call', provide perhapsthe most compelling
4
evidence of the informal nature of workers' organisations.The ways in which this system
aidedthe work processareexaminedin chaptertwo, while its useduringindustrialaction

is assessedin chapter five.
However the provision of a context for the study of urban artisansis rather scarcewithin
the general literature, as localised studiesof urban artisansare relatively rare. This is
largely due to the fact that most previous studieshave focused on broader communities of
workers such as weavers,colliers, and seamen,where issuesof trade and community
closely overlapped,and where the weapon of the crowd and direct action were often
utilised. Focus on such groups is perhapsunderstandable.Pre-occupationwith cotton
textiles was partly a product of the trade's position as `the growth industry of the
eighteenthcentury', with 114,000families dependenton this industry for employment as
early as 1759. This factor also accountsfor its symbolic importance in earlier literature as
35
historians
focused
factory
`true
However,
the
on
pioneer of the modern
also
system'.
because
because
their
and
particularly
of the
such groups
of
apparently exceptional nature
relatively high levels of conflict and dispute which characterisedthem. Dobson, for
example,justifies his choice of subject by noting that weaversheld `the record for the
36
in
in
`seamen
secondplace'. This
number of strikes' the eighteenthcentury with
approachhas, however, tendedto skew historical interpretations in certain directions. Most
obviously, it over-privileges groups which were most involved in action. It has, however,
also led to a tendencyto over-generalisationon the basis of the histories of certain groups.
Thus, as Lis and Soly observe,for example, `the impression that protests among preindustrial workers were defensive and socially conservative' appearsto arise `primarily
from the excessiveemphasisplaced by (mostly British) historians on actions led by textile
37
during
the eighteenthcentury'.
workers
In seeking to account for the apparently higher levels of dispute in certain trades,as well as
the specific strategiesadopted,historians have emphasisedthe importance of place. Thus,
Dobson, for example, accountsfor the apparently strike-prone nature of certain trades in
terms of the theory of an ìsolated mass'. He arguesthat becausegroups such as weavers
and colliers lived in `separatecommunities' there were `few neutrals..... to mediate
38
dilute
conflicts and
the mass'. Other historians have, however, pointed to the disparities
of experienceacrossdifferent trades.Thus, while Chasearguesthat `most workers
continued to live in the vicinity of their work' until the latter nineteenth century, Clark's
work highlights differences of region as well as of trade.39Thus, her work on London
artisansreveals that, while tailors and shoemakersclustered in certain areassuch as St.
James,many lived in areassurroundedby other membersof the urban
poor, with the result
0
that the workshop and pub `defined their community' rather than the street. By contrast,
Lancashire textile villages in which marriage registerslisted between one-third and onehalf of couples as hand-loom weaversare, not surprisingly, describedby Clark as
èxtremely cohesive' communities.41Knowledge about the residential density of specific
trades is crucial to our understandingof patterns and strategiesof collective action. In
London, for example, `groups like tailors and shoemakerswere numbered in thousands',a
concentrationof numberswhich meant labour disputescould involve instancesof crowd
2
action. In 1768, for example,mastershoemakerswho were refusing a wage rise had the
windows of their housessmashed.Likewise in February 1792 à thousand shoemakers'
assembledoutside a London court, to protest at the arrest of fellow shoemakersduring a
dispute, 3 Such instancespoint to the importance of trade density and concentration;
suggestingthat the number of workers in any given trade in any given locality was as
important a factor than any trade having a monopoly on particular modes of action. In this
in
be
Randall's
that
should
regard
not viewed
comment
eighteenth-centurycombinations
ìsolation from their social context or simply as prototypes for later trade unionism' but
4
is
instructive.
In line with this, it is
ìndigenous
to pre-industrial society'
rather as
important to chart the geographicdistribution of Bristol's shoemakersand tailors across
the city. This task is undertakenin chapter three.
More recently, historians have emphasisedthe diverse complexities and ambiguities of
worker organisation in this period. Lis and Soly, for example, enunciate a division between
two main types of worker: those with strong shop-floor organisation who were able to
`develop negotiating techniquesand organize strikes' and `those that were weaker' and
45
had
ùsually
to resort to petitions, street demonstrationsand riots'. Likewise Charles
Tilly, in his study of `contentiousgatherings', concludesthat while trade disputesoften
involved `massstrikes, machine-breaking,and attacks on the housesof masters', such
46
less
phenomenawere
prevalent among artisans. Thus an important element to
understandingthe context in which artisanslived and worked is the type of community
they inhabited.
In the eighteenthcenturyBristol washometo manyindustriesandfields of commerce.

Mathews, compiler of the 1794 Bristol trade directory, mentions in his preface that the
easternareasof Bristol were full of `glass-houses,iron-foundries, distilleries, breweries,
7
and sugar-houses'. By 1800Bristol could lay claim to èleven glassworks' which
produced many glass bottles as well as `large quantities of window glass' and which
supplied not only local hinterlands in the West Country and South Wales, but also
Àmerica and Ireland' 48 According to Mathews, Bristol had been the first
England
in
place
to manufacturesoap,dating back to 1523,and by the eighteenthcentury the city produced

a `hard white soap' which `was held by contemporariesto be superior to any made in
England' 49 Given the widespreadnature of Bristol's commercial trading links it is hardly
surprising that Bristol was also a `shipbuilding centre of some importance'; 176 vessels
were built in the city's docks between 1787 and 1800.50
Prior to the eighteenthcentury Bristol had been a major trader in the markets of Ireland,
France, and Spain. In the eighteenthcentury, however, it was `the growth of transatlantic
51
`rum,
key
Thus,
Bristol's
to
commerce' which was the
slaves,tobacco and
commerce.
S2
ingredients
in
sugarwere the main
of Bristol's prosperity' the eighteenthcentury. So
extensive and important were Bristol's domestic and foreign trading links that Defoe
describedthe city as the `metropolis of the west'. 53During this period Bristol's economy
can best be describedas semi-industrial, given the importance of its commercial sector and
despitethe existenceof someworkplaces which were relatively large, neverthelessonly
employed a minority of the city's workforce. Bristol's economy therefore never matched
the classic Ìndustrial Revolution' model, and thus highlights the importance of
Thompson's observation that it is crucial to analysethe eighteenth century as a society in
its own right. 54
Within eighteenth-centurysociety an àrtisan' was so describedif he had, either by an
apprenticeshipor similar training `come to possessa skill in a particular craft and the right
S5
it'
John Rule has popularised the idea that a fundamental componentof
to exercise
artisan life lay in defending a `property in skill'. However, this was largely àssumedrather
than articulated' until the late eighteenthcentury, when it was brought to the surfaceby
growing threats to apprenticeshipstatutes(from employers and State alike) that culminated
in their repeal in 1814.56The extent to which artisanal identity was shapedby the needto
defend a `property in skill' was therefore not fundamental until the early nineteenth
century. Thus, not surprisingly perhaps,such issueswere rarely enunciatedby Bristol's
shoemakersand tailors in the period under study, and do not therefore constitute a major
component of this study. However, while acknowledging this, issuessuch as the defenceof
apprenticeshipregulations and of the `property in skill' were never wholly unimportant to
Bristol's artisans.In 1814, for example, the bill to repeal the apprenticeshipclausesof the
1563 Statute of Artificers was opposedby a petition signed by 5,811 men.57Such
evidence suggeststhat the `property of skill' thesis does not representa totally fruitless line
of enquiry even for the earlier period studied here. According to Rule, distinctions between
skilled and unskilled work were as'much rooted in social and gender distinctions' as they
were in `technical aptitude'; thus, for example, male domination of cotton (mule) spinning
led to it being defined as `skilled'. 58Skill was therefore a `male property' and one through
which the `symbolic capital of honour' entitled Its holder to dignity and respect' from
59
employers. Partly with such issuesin mind, an assessmentof the impact of female labour
on the Bristol shoemakingand tailoring tradesis undertakenin chapter two.
The question of whether artisansin the late eighteenthcentury possesseda consciousness
of themselvesas a separateclass of workers is a problematic one. As indicated earlier in
this introduction, the emergenceof waged labour long pre-dated this period, while the
ever-growing number of men totally reliant on wagesfor their upkeep had grown to the
extent that the separationof a distinct labour interest had been discernible for many
decades.Rule argues,moreover, that social mobility was increasingly prohibitive for many
journeymen, becausethey were unable to afford to set themselvesup as masters,with the
6
`class
journeymen
large'
in
Analysis
that
the
result
of permanent
urban trades was very
of the discord that such processescausedbetween mastersandjourneymen in the two
Bristol trades is dealt with fully in chapter five.
A summary of the key theoretical and historiographical debatesregarding class in this
period is neverthelesscrucial at this stage.Scholarshave long contendedthat `class', in the
more modern senseof the term, had little relevanceor meaning to studies of eighteenthcentury society. Asa Briggs, for example, argued that class as a cognisant and linguistic
factor in British society did not appearon the historical sceneuntil the late eighteenthand
61
early nineteenthcenturies, Thompson largely followed this interpretation by asserting
that class was not a recognisableissuewithin the historical evidence until the 1790s.
Despite this, Thompson contendedthat class analysis was neverthelessvaluable as a
heuristic device, with which to de-codesocial conflict. Thus, he hypothesisedthat
eighteenth-centurysocial relations were characterisedby a societal `field-of-force' with the
`plebeian' massthat made up the crowd and the gentry at opposite poles.62However, this
analysis related largely to the rural labourerswho formed the basis of Thompson's studies
of food riots, and thus holds at best limited significance to a study of an urban regional
metropolis such as Bristol.
According to PenelopeCorfield social divisions in urban eighteenth-centuryEngland were
characterisedby an increasing `linguistic fluidity'. While terms such as `sort' and `class'
weremore expressiveof socialandeconomicchanges,thosesuchas `ranks' and òrders'

tendedto reflect moretraditionalmeasuresof status,63Indeed,by thisjuncture Bristol, in
commonwith London,was èssentiallya two andnot a three-classsociety'. Thus,while
`therewasa middle-classanda lower-class','the city could not boastof
a nobleor an
8
64
bias
Thompson's
despite
However,
the
work on the eighteenth
of
aristocratic class'.
rural
century, there is much to suggestthat Thompsonwas right to contend that the
consciousnessof urban artisanswas that of the `Trade'. Likewise his assertionthat
acrimony was most likely to develop over their position as consumersthan as producers,
5
While
for
interesting
for
the
the
rural
context.
as
raises some
urban
researchquestions
Thompson was primarily referring to the involvement of rural workers in food riots, it
food
into
demands
likely
that
translate
prices
rising
seems
workers could
grievancesover
for higher wages.Chapter five of this study therefore analysesthe extent to which it was
their position as `consumers'or `producers' that drove Bristol's journeymen shoemakers
and tailors to undertake industrial action.
However, materialist approachesto social history have come under sustainedattack in
frameworks
from
draw
theoretical
the
that
and
upon
recent years,particularly
perspectives
insights of postmodernism.In the forefront of such challengeshas been Patrick Joyce,who
discourses
inseparable
from
`historical
that constructthem'.
the
that
claims
past eventsare
Class, he argues,on this basis, had no òbjective reality' outside its social construction by
historical actors.66This approachexplicitly rejects the notion that it is possible to relate
historical sourcesto any material `reality', and suggeststhat the focus should lie insteadon
the ways in which historical sourceswere both shapedby, and implicated in, the
construction of various discourses.Such debatesregarding what has becomeknown as the
`linguistic turn' have centred mainly on the nineteenth century. Many scholarshave either
7
have
Such
been
defended
this
views
nevertheless
passionately
approach.
or opposed
have
influenced
broadly
despite
their
more
pervasive and,
nineteenth-centuryemphasis,
the study of early modem Europeanartisans.Thus Farr, for example, contendsthat
issues
be
labour
consideredwithin the
must
economic questions such as
and production
cultural context in which they were generated,on the basis that `labour and production'
issueswere as `cultural as any other human activity'. 68Ultimately, whether one believes
that languagereflects a material reality or not is largely a matter of faith, since evidence
can be marshalled either way. This study has been conducted in the belief that it is possible
to accessthe material world of eighteenth-centuryBristol through contemporary sources.It
therefore concurs with Crossick who assertsthat àrtisanswould exist in neither our
sourcesnor our imagination had they not been performing an economic activity within
69
the
production or
provision of services'.
This is not, however, to assertthat the revisionist approach is entirely without merit. Thus,
for example, this project takes on board Joyce's assertionof the value of èxtra-proletarian
identification' and of the importance of categoriessuch as nation, region, community, and
9
70
in
inherent
individual.
class to any understandingof the diversity of loyalties
each
Indeed, the study seeksto further explore the significance of this contention that
individuals possessmultiple identities for an earlier period. Historians working on other
eighteenth-centurysocietieshave drawn fruitfully upon such theoretical frameworks. Thus,
Sonenscher,for example, arguesthat artisansin eighteenth-centuryFrance developed
`generalconceptionsof the social and political order' which stood outside `the languageof
71
class'. He maintains that workers developeda vocabulary drawn not from the èxperience
of particular trades' but from èighteenth-centurycivil jurisprudence' and `natural law',
and that, as a result, conflicts drew upon ìmages,metaphorsand fictions drawn from the
72
French
whole repertoire of social transactionof the eighteenth-century
polity'. Building
on such insights, this study contendsthat the emergenceof a `public sphere' in late
eighteenth-centuryEngland, especially through such mechanismsas the developing
provincial press,provided new cultural arenasin which artisansas much as the middle73
class could expressthemselves. Chapter five examinesthe manner in which artisansused
newspaperspaceto further their aims, a facet of artisanal agitation overlooked by other
74
scholars. Finally, as CharlesTilly among others has shown, electoral politics and
75
identities
affiliations were also componentsof the multi-faceted
of artisans. Chapter six
therefore evaluatesthe engagementof artisanswith electoral politics, an approachthat is
particularly relevant with regardsto the shoemakerswho have been describedin one
influential study in particular as an articulate, book-loving group who were regardedas the
ìdeologists of the common people'.76
(2) Sources - Newspapers, Poll Books, and Trade Directories
Given their growth and increasingreadershipin this period, newspapersare a particularly
appropriate sourcefor any study of the late eighteenthcentury. Evidence of their growing
circulation and importance can be seen,for example, in the increasing number of stamps
issuedby the stamp office. Theserose from 9.5 million in 1760 to 12.7 million in 1775 and
16 million in 1801.77Stampsrepresentedthe taxation imposed on newspapers,decried as
`taxeson knowledge' by contemporaries,and the relatively systematic nature of this
taxation processmakes stampsa good measureof the growth in newspapersales.78
According to Burnett the `circulation of newspapersdoubled' between 1753 and 1792 as
newspaperscame to be read by wider sectionsof society.79
Despitethis overall growth,the proliferationof provincial newspapers,

in contrastto the
flourishingindustryin all formsof printedmediain London,was slow in the
early
eighteenthcentury.The growth of the provincialpressnevertheless
acceleratedin the
10
in
1753,
32
between
1800.
1770
Thus
there
provincial
papers
only
were
period
and
while
there were 50 by 1770 and in excessof 100 by 1808.80Here Bristol seemsto have beenno
for
Cranfield,
to
led
have
Indeed,
the
the city may even
way; according
exception.
from
dating
Bristol
`the
paper
a
provincial
of
example,
provides
earliest extant copy'
1704.81The involvement of the Farley family in Bristol newspaperswas pivotal to the
developmentof a provincial pressin the region. Various membersof the Farley clan were
`responsiblefor papersin Exeter, Bristol, Salisbury and Bath' and, as Cranfield asserts,`no
other family played quite so prominent a role in the developmentof the early provincial
82
newspaperpress'.
Provincial newspapersare an exceptionally rich source for historians of trades.Of
particular significance to this study is the extent of newspaperspacegiven over to
feature
`conspicuous
According
Feather,
to
of newspapers'
a
advertising was
advertising.
in this period. Christie likewise acknowledgesthe ìmportant commercial service to the
community' which advertising performed, and Aspinall concludes that advertising revenue
83
According
to
the
costs.
rarely
met
production
newspapers
sale of
was vital since
Cranfield, as early as the 1750s,Bristol's newspapershad become `virtually trade papers
84
The
local
trade
their
extent of a paper's
commerce.
and
with
main emphasisupon
distribution network was utilised to market the benefits of advertising space.Thus, for
example, the mastheadof the Bristol Gazettedeclared in 1767 that, given its extensive
South
Wales,
Somerset,
Gloucestershire,
the Àdvantage of
throughout
and
circulation
ADVERTISING in it cannot but be obvious (sic)'. 85Likewise, the distribution cycle of the
Bristol Mercury in 1792 stretchedthroughout Somerset,Gloucestershire,Wiltshire, and
South Wales to London, York, Liverpool, Manchester,Birmingham, Oxford, and
Cambridge.86Given this wide circulation of most provincial newspapers,largely for
advertising purposes,Jeremy Black has quite rightly assertedthat `most provincial papers
87
local
in
were not
papers the modem sense'.
One of the key reasonsthat newspapersrepresentsuch a rich source is precisely becauseso
much of the content was taken up with adverts and inserted letters, with the result that
much of the paper was untainted by editorial biases.Letters and insertions placed in the
newspaperstherefore representedindependentdocumentson their own. Newspapersare
also a valuable resourcebecauseartisansused and read them. Indeed, evidence of this wide
readershipexists in the newspapersthemselves.In 1726, for example, a shoemakerwrote
to one paper describing how he and the three others that sharedhis garret pooled their
88
to
resources purchasea newspaper. Likewise Robert Bloomfield, a London-based
shoemaker,described in the 1790show `yesterday's paper (was) brought in with their
11
dinner by the pot-boy from a neighbouring public-house', and how he read it aloud to five
89
other shoemakers. Such evidencenot only speaksto the relevance of newspapersto
artisans,but also shows that, due to such group readings,the readershipof newspaperswas
far in excessof official sale and circulation figures. As a recent study of retailing in
Hampshire asserts,newspaperswere widely read, and, as such, were `popular vehicles for
90
fact
that
This
the
information
the transmissionof
combined with
at this period'.
by
historians
have
been
of trades,suggests
provincial newspapers
rarely
used extensively
that analysis of this sourcewill reveal fresh information and provide the basis of new
insights.
During the period from 1770 to 1800 six weekly newspapersoperatedin Bristol, albeit at
different times. While there are some gaps in the collection, not even one month during the
Journal
Farley's
Bristol
the
Felix
Thus
left
was
some
coverage.
entire period was
without
Gazette
for
Bristol
for
the
have
ran
the
to
while
entire period,
only paper
extant copies
between 1771 and 1799 very few extant copies have survived from the 1780s.Covering
fairly long periods also were Bonner and Middleton's Bristol Journal, having copies
between 1774 and 1800,while Sarah Farley's Bristol Journal ran fairly consistently
between 1777 and 1799.Furthermore two paperscovered much shorter periods at separate
1769
1777,
Bristol
between
Journal
the
Bristol
the
the
and
while
ran
ends of
period, as
Mercury ran between 1790 and 1798.91All thesenewspaperswere issuedon Saturdays,
Bristol
Mercury
Thursdays,
from
Gazette,
the
Bristol
the
and
on
out
apart
which came
interests
from
In
1790.
its
hit
the
Mondays
the
of
which
streetson
after appearance
between
the
above
newspapers
conducting a comprehensivesearch,every extant copy of
1769 and 1800 was accessed,and every advert related to the two trades was transcribed.In
local
information
to
the
news was also collected.
relevant
addition
column relating
within
Two other sourceswere also of paramount importance to this study: poll books and trade
directories. Poll books included lists of all freemen with the right to vote in parliamentary
elections and, becauseBristol enjoyed a relatively wide freeman franchise of up to 6,000
individuals in this period, these included many shoemakersand tailors. Crucially, because
franchise entitlements for artisanswere primarily basedon having served an apprenticeship
in Bristol, meant that poll books included journeymen as well as masters.Although voters
provided their own description of their occupation, this is unlikely to adversely affect this
study because,for obvious reasons,describing oneself as a `shoemaker' or `tailor' did not
carry the sorts of prestige and statusconnotationsthat using labels such as `gentleman' did.
Indeed, the comprehensivelisting of occupationswhich these eighteenth-centuryBristol
poll books provide is in fact a great assetfor the historian; R. J. Morris laments that in the
12
books
`have
introduced,
ballots
before
1872,
no
many
poll
were
entire period
when secret
2
in
books
for
Bristol
the
has
This
the
titles'.
poll
extant
occupational
study
utilised all
1784.
for
1754,1774,1781,
books
half
and
the
exist
second
of
eighteenthcentury; such
Trade directories were also extremely useful, as they comprised lists of businessesin
be
In
to
common
trades
compiled.
thus
various
enableda samplepurely of masters
and
for
thirst
directories
to
the
growing
with newspapers,trade
owed their origins and growth
in
directories
information.
According
Norton,
to
originated
commercial
commercial
London where `the expansionof industry and commercein the eighteenthcentury' meant
93
that `the usefulnessof directories becamegenerally recognised'. Liverpool, Manchester
directories
`first
Bristol
to
the
towns'
partly reflecting
create
were among
and
provincial
the fact that thesecities òwed their expansionat this time mainly to the growth of foreign
94
ìndustrial
directories
to
Corfield
that
conducive
were particularly
asserts
commerce'
business
that
enterprises', a
centres
contained many small mastersand a variety of
description she applies to Birmingham and Sheffield, but one that is also just as
95
directories
in
Although
Bristol
the
this
of
was placeto
production
period.
appropriate
Sketchley,
it
James
inter-connected;
the man
thus,
the
was
specific,
processwas
in
for
1763,
Birmingham
first
directory
for
the
who printed
provincial
responsible
printing
the first Bristol directory in 1775.6 By the 1780sdirectories were commonplaceand were
97
`recognisedas useful and necessaryinstruments of communication'. The popularity of
directories in Bristol was apparentlyunparalleled; the city produced more editions of its
directories between 1731 and 1830 than any other English town, with Birmingham and
Liverpool in secondand third place respectively.98Sevenseparatetitles were published in
Bristol in theseyears, accounting for forty editions in all.
The reliability of directories is related to the manner in which information was collected.
Many compilers claimed to have visited every housein the areacovered. Thus, Joseph
Mathews, for example, claimed that his 1812 Bristol directory was the result of his
99
personally visiting every house òf trade and respectability' Of course, even such a
thorough approachas this relied on people volunteering the required information.
Nevertheless,despite some limitations, such methods of data collection do suggestthat
trade directories were relatively comprehensivesourcesof information. Other
methodological issuesarise from the possibility of a time lag between the date of
collecting the information and the date of publication. However, the Bristol directories
would appearto be relatively reliable in this respect; publication occurred normally within
100
two
three
information
being
only
or
months of the
collected. Thus, while directories are
in some ways an imperfect source,they neverthelessprovide a valuable tool with which to
13
identify and construct a sampleof masterstrading on their own terms, and the Bristol
directories for 1775,1785, and 1794have beenutilised to this end.
The preceding pageshave explored someof the ideas and debatesthat inform this study, as
well as identifying the key primary sourcesused. At this stage,it is important to chart
briefly how the study intends to bring the various strandsof the study together. Chapter
one analysesthe marketing languageof trade advertisementsin order to delineatebetween
the ready-mademarket in shoesand clothes, and the more exclusive `bespoke' market.
Chapter two utilises a variety of sourcesto assessthe division of labour, including the role
of gender in the organisation of labour of both trades,and to examine the mobility of
labour within the two trades.Chapter three establishesthe `quality of life' of Bristol's
shoemakersand tailors and their families. A key aspectof this chapter consists of an
analysis of electoral poll books to provide data on the relative residential density of
shoemakersand tailors within Bristol's parishes.This makes it possible to ascertain,for
example, whether the two tradesresided in the more unsanitary and overcrowded areasof
the city. The impact of occupational health problems is also assessed.Chapter four
complementsits predecessorby undertaking a quantitative survey of the journeymen
by
is
living.
This
tailors'
achieved
assessingthe movements
shoemakers'and
standardof
of local food prices and wage-ratesin this period, and then by adjusting the budget
weightings collected for the `labouring poor' by contemporary surveys to the consumption
patterns of urban artisans.This makes it possible to ascertainwhether real wagesrose or
fell in the period. All the preceding chapters,although especially chapter four, then provide
a qualitative and quantitative context for chapter five which analysesa seriesof strikes in
both trades.This chapter seeksto advanceour understandingof `labour history' by
considering how Bristol's shoemakersand tailors looked to the `public sphere' arenaof the
newspaperpress,as a meansof literally advertising their industrial grievances.Chapter six
further assessesthe engagementof artisans in the `public sphere' by focusing on the voting
trends of shoemakersand tailors during the three parliamentary elections of 1774,1781,
and 1784. This provides the basis for an examination of whether thesetrades had distinct
voting interests in comparison to the electorateas a whole. Overall, the thesis seeksto
complement, and build upon, existing avenuesof scholarly enquiry, such as the more
establishedfocus on strikes, while at the sametime opening up new areasof investigation
such as the engagementof artisanswith parliamentary politics and the `public sphere'.
14
ENDNOTES
' E. P. Thompson,TheMakingof theEnglishWorkingClass(London,1963;1991edn.), p. 12.
2 D. Alexander, Retailing in England during the Industrial Revolution (London, 1970); 1. Prothero,Artisans
and Politics in Early Nineteenth-CenturyLondon: John Gast and his Times(Folkestone, 1979); C. R.
Dobson,Masters and Journeymen:A prehistory of industrial Relations, 1717-1800 (London, 1980); J. Rule,
TheExperienceof Labour in Eighteenth-CenturyIndustry (London, 1981); R. W. Malcolmson, Life and
Labour in England, 1700-1780(London, 1981); J. I-ioppit, Risk and Failure in English Business(Cambridge,
1987); A. Randall, Before the Luddites: Custom,Community and Machinery in the English WoollenIndustry,
1776-1809 (Cambridge, 1991); M. Sonenscher,Work and Wages:Natural Law, Politics and the eighteenthcentury French trades (Cambridge, 1989); J. R. Farr, Artisans in Europe, 1300-1914 (Cambridge, 2000); M.
Chase,Early Trade Unionism: Fraternity, Skill and the Politics of Labour (Aldershot, 2000). Of coursethese
examplesdo not constitute a comprehensivelist.
3 Malcolmson, Life
and Labour, p. 113.; J. Stevenson,Popular Disturbances in England, 1700-1870
(London, 1979), p. 133.
4 J. Rule (ed.), British Trade Unionism, 1750-1850(London, 1988),p. 2.
s B. Lemire, Dress, Culture and Commerce: TheEnglish Clothing Trade before the Factory, 1660-1800
London, 1997), p. 5.
Cited in R. Reith, 'The social history of craft in Germany: a new edition of the work of Rudolf Wissell',
International Review of Social History, 36 (1991), p. 95,100. Likewise Rule has assertedthat strikes can
uncover 'levels of working life otherwise submerged' as he called for historians to dig 'deeper in searchof
the everyday' even though it was 'harder to discover the usual'. J. Rule, 'Against Innovation? Custom and
Resistancein the Workplace, 1700-1850' in T. Harris (ed.), Popular Culture in England, 1700-1850
(London, 1995),p. 168.
S. and B. Webb, TheHistory of Trade Unionism, 1666-1920 (London, 1894; 1920 edn.), pp. 45-46.
RIbid.
9 A. Clark, The Strugglefor the Breeches: Gender and the Making of the British Working Class (London,
1995), p. 140.
10E. Hobsbawm, Labouring Men (London, 1964), pp. 7-8.
" Stevenson,Popular Disturbances, p. 135.
12A. Randall, 'The Industrial Moral Economy of the GloucestershireWeavers in the Eighteenth Century' in
J. Rule (ed.), British Trade Unionism, 1750-1850 (London, 1988),p. 30.
13L. Brentano, On Gilds and Trade Unions (London, 1870), p. 103.
14M. Chase,Early Trade Unionism: Fraternity, Skill, and the Politics of Labour (Aldershot, 2000), p. 28.
's J. Latimer, TheAnnals of Bristol in the Eighteenth Century (Bristol, 1893), p. 401.
16Webb, History of Trade Unionism, p. 14.
17Chase,Early Trade Unionism, p. 22,52.
181bid.,p. 33.
19F. Lenger, 'Beyond Exceptionalism: Notes on the Artisanal Phaseof the Labour Movement in France,
England, Germany and the United States',International Review of Social History, 36,1991, p. 9.
20Ibid., pp. 1-2.
21Thompson,Makingof theEnglish WorkingClass,p. 259.
22C. Lis and H. Soly, "'An Irresistible Phalanx": JourneymenAssociations in Western Europe, 1300-1800'
in C. Lis, J. Lucassen,and H. Soly (eds), 'Before the Unions: Wage Earners and Collective Action in Europe,
1300-1850', International Review of Social History, 39, supplementno. 2,1994, p. 3, SO.;Chase,Early
Trade Unionism, p. 33.
23Rule(ed.), British TradeUnionism, 1.

p.
24J. Rule,'The Propertyof Skill in thePeriod Manufacture'in Joyce,P., (ed.), TheHistoricalMeanings
of
of
Work(Cambridge1987),p. 102.
25L. A. Clarkson, 'Wage Labour, 1500-1800' in K. Brown (ed.), The English Labour Movement (Dublin,
1982), pp. 2-3.
26C. Lis, J. Lucassen,
and 11.Soly (eds), 'Before the Unions: Wage earnersand Collective Action in Europe,
1300-1850', International Review of Social History, 39, supplementno. 2, (1994), p. 7.
27Thompson, Making the English Working Class, 12,
of
p.
28Dobson, Masters
and Journeymen,pp. 154-170.
29J. Rule, 'Labour Consciousness
and Industrial Conflict in Eighteenth-Century Exeter' in B, Stapleton(ed.),
Conflict and Community in Southern England: Essaysin the Social History of Rural
and Urban Labour from
Medieval to Modern Times(Stroud, 1992),p. 93.
3Sonenscher,Work
and Wages,p. 245.
31J. Orth, Combination
and Conspiracy: A Legal History of Trade Unionism, 1721-1906 (Oxford, 1991), pp.
199-204,or J. Moher, 'From Suppressionto Containment: Roots Trade Union Law to 1825' in J. Rule
of
(ed.), British Trade Unionism, 1750-1850 (London, 1988), 76. Both these essayslist the
p.
piecemeal
legislation that outlawed combination
activity in certain trades and places before the uniform legislation of
1799 and 1800,banning combinations in all trades,
was introduced.
is
32Webb, History of Trade Unionism, p. 1.

33Dobson, Masters and Journeymen,p. 25.; J. Rule, TheLabouring Classesin Early Industrial England,
1750-1850(London, 1986),p. 256.
34Rule, Experienceof Labour, p. 151.; E. P. Thompson, Customsin Common(London, 1991), p. 59.
35Rule, Experience of Labour, pp. 23-24.
36Dobson, Masters
and Journeymen,p. 30.
37Lis and Soly, "'An Irresistible Phalanx"', p. 39.
38Ibid., p. 30.
39Chase,Early Trade Unionism, p. 4. (my italics).
40Clark, Strugglefor the Breeches,p. 27.
41Ibid., p. 66,27.
42Rule, Experience of Labour, p. 21,28.
43Dobson, Masters and Journeymen,pp. 56-57.
44Randall, 'Industrial Moral Economy', pp. 31-32.
45Lis and Soly, "'An Irresistible Phalanx"', p. 50.
46C. Tilly, Popular Contention in Great Britain, 1758-1834(Cambridge, Mass., 1995), pp. 189-190.
47Mathews's Bristol guide and directory 1793-4 (Bristol, 1794).
48W. Minchinton, `The Port of Bristol in the Eighteenth Century' in P. McGrath (ed.), Bristol in the 18`4
Century (Bristol, 1972), p. 133.
49Mathews's Bristol guide, p. 41; Minchinton, 'The Port of Bristol', p. 133.
50Minchinton, `The Port of Bristol', p. 134.
51Ibid., p. 128.
52Ibid., p. 130.
53Ibid., p. 134.
54E. P. Thompson, 'English Trade Unionism and Other Labour Movements before 1790', Bulletin of the
Societyfor the Study of Labour, 17, (1968), p. 20.
ssRule, 'Property of Skill', p. 102.
56Ibid., pp. 104-105.
S7Prothero, Artisans and Politics, p. 60.
58Rule, 'Property of Skill', pp. 108-109.
59Ibid.
60Ibid., p. 102.
61A. Briggs, "The Languageof "Class" in Early Nineteenth-Century England' in A. Briggs and J. Saville
(eds), Essaysin Labour History (London, 1960), pp. 43-73.
62E. P. Thompson, 'Eighteenth-Century English Society: Class Struggle without Class?', Social History, 2
1978), p. 165,149,152-153.
3 p. J. Corfield, 'Class by Name and Number in Eighteenth-CenturyBritain', History, 234,72, (1987), p. 39,
47.
64P. T. Marcy, 'EighteenthCenturyviewsof Bristol andBristolians'in P. McGrath,(ed.), Bristol in the 18th

Century(NewtonAbbot, 1972),p. 29.
65Thompson, 'Class Struggle without Class', p. 145.

66P Joyce, 'History and Post-Modernism', Past and Present, 133, (1991), p. 208.; P. Joyce, Visions of the
People: Industrial England and the Question of Class, 1848-1914 (Cambridge, 1991), p. 9.
67SeeR. Gray, 'The deconstructingof the English working class', Social History, 11,3, (1986), pp. 363373.; D. Mayfield and S. Thorne, 'Social history and its discontents:Gareth StedmanJonesand the politics
Taylor,
M.
'The poverty of protest:
Social
(1992),
J.
Lawrence
language',
History,
17,2,
165-188;
and
of
pp.
Gareth StedmanJonesand the politics of language-a reply', Social History, 18,1, (1993), pp. 1-15.; N.
Kirk, 'History, language,ideas and post-modernism: a materialist view', Social History, 19,2, (1994), pp.
221-240.; J. Vernon, 'Who's afraid of the "linguistic turn"? The politics of social history and its discontents',
Social History, 19,1, (1994), pp. 81-97.; R. Price, 'Postmodernism as theory and history' in J. Belchem and
N. Kirk, (eds), Languages of Labour (Aldershot, 1997), pp. 11-43.; E. M. Wood and J. B. Foster, (eds), In
Defence of History: Marxism and the PostmodernAgenda (New York, 1997). This list is by no means
comprehensive,
68J. R. Farr, 'Cultural
analysis and early modern artisans' in G. Crossick (ed.), The Artisan and the European
Town, 1500-1900 (Aldershot, 1997),p. 58.
69G. Crossick,Past
masters:in searchof the artisanin Europeanhistory' in G. Crossick(ed.), TheArtisan
and theEuropeanTown,1500-1900(Aldershot,1997),p. 5.
70Joyce, Visions the People,

of
pp. 11-12.
71Sonenscher,Work
and Wages,p. 246.
72Ibid., pp. 246-247.
73G. Eley, 'Edward Thompson, Social History
and Political Culture: The making of a working-class public,
1780-1850' in H. J. Kaye and K. McClelland (eds), E. P. Thompson: Critical Perspectives(Oxford, 1990), p.
14.
16
74J. Rule, Ìndustrial Disputes, Wage Bargaining

and the Moral Economy' in A. Randall and A.
Charlesworth (eds),Moral Economy and Popular Protest: Crowds, Conflict and Authority (Basingstoke,
2000), pp. 171-176.
75Tilly, Popular Contention, 97.
p.
76E. Hobsbawm
and J. Scott, 'Political Shoemakers',Past and Present, 89,1980, pp. 86-87,94-95.
77I. R. Christie, Myth
and Reality in Late-Eighteenth-CenturyBritish Politics and Other Papers (London,
1970),p. 313.
78G. A. Cranfield, TheDevelopment the Provincial Newspaper, 1700-1760 (Oxford, 1962),
of
pp. 17-18.,A.
Aspinall, Politics and the Press, c. 1780-1850(London, 1949), p. 16.
79J. Burnett, A History the Cost Living (London, 1969; 1993 Reprint), 156.
of
of
p.
80J. Black, TheEnglish Press, 1621-1861 (Stroud, Gloucs., 2001), 110.; J. Feather, 'The Power Print:
p.
of
Word and Image in Eighteenth-CenturyEngland' in J. Black, (ed.), Culture and Society in Britain, 16601800 (Manchester, 1997), p. 53.
81Cranfield, Development the Provincial Newspaper, 13.; J. Black, The English Press in
of
the Eighteenth
p.
Century (London, 1987),p. 13.
82Cranfield, Development the Provincial Newspaper, 56,61.
of
p.
83Christie, Myth
and Reality, p. 327.; Aspinall, Politics and the Press, p. 126.; Feather, `Word and Image in
Eighteenth-CenturyEngland', p. 54. This was despite a fairly hefty 'advertisement duty', which was levied at
the rate of 2s in 1776,rising to 2s 6d in 1780 and 3s in 1789. SeeAspinall, Politics and the Press, p. 16.
84Cranfield, Development the Provincial Newspaper, 97.
of
p.
85Bristol Gazette,24/12/1767.
96This information
was gleanedfrom the mastheadof the Bristol Mercury in several issuesfor 1792.Other
papershad a similarly wide network of distribution.
57Black, The English Press, p. 113.
88Cranfield, Development the Provincial Newspaper, 177.
of
p.
89W. E. Winks, Lives Illustrious Shoemakers(London, 1883), 104.
p.
of
90C. Fowler, `Changesin Provincial Retail Practice during the Eighteenth Century,
with Particular Reference
to Central-SouthernEngland', BusinessHistory, Vol. 40,4, October 1998,p. 39.
91All extant copies of these
newspaperscan be located in Bristol ReferenceLibrary, within Bristol's Central
Lending Library.
92R. J. Morris, `Propertytitles andtheuse British urbanpoll booksfor

socialanalysis',UrbanHistory
of
Yearbook,1983,p. 29.
93J. E. Norton, Guide to the National

and Provincial Directories of England and Wales,excluding London,
before 1856 (London, 1950), pp. 1-2.
spublished
4Ibid., p. 5.
95P. J. Corfield, "'Giving directions to the town": the
early town directories', Urban History Yearbook, 1984,
28.
96Ibid., 5,8,91.
p.
97Ibid., p. 6.
98Ibid., p. 31.
99Norton,NationalandProvincialDirectories, 16.
p.
100
Ibid., p. 21.
17
PART ONE: PRODUCTION AND THE LABOUR FORCE
18
IN THE
AND MARKETING
CHAPTER
ONE: PRODUCTION
1769-1800
TRADES OF BRISTOL,
SHOEMAKING
AND TAILORING
This chapter assessesthe ways in which shoesand clothes were produced and marketed in
Bristol during the late eighteenthcentury, through an analysis of trade advertisements
lines
in
two
Bristol
The
the
of enquiry.
main
placed
chapterpursues
newspaperpress.
Firstly, by examining the manner in which goods or serviceswere marketed, it seeksto
Secondly,
(made-to-order).
bespoke
ascertainwhether goods were produced ready-madeor
it assessesthe commercial awarenessof Bristol's shoemakersand tailors by examining the
extent to which advertsreferred to the fashionablenature of their goods, together with their
knowledge of London practices. While the two trades shall be dealt with separately,
further
help
be
between
to
the analysis.
the
two
used
will
comparisonsand contrasts
SHOEMAKING
An investigation into whether Bristol's shoemakersproduced ready-madefootwear or
in
by
is
by
the
to
number of advertisementsplaced masters the
made order well served
for
for
been
have
thirty-five
Forty-seven
this
accounting
study,
collected
newspapers.
individual shoemakersor partnerships.They are listed in Table 1:1. This can be taken as a
fairly representativesampleof the city's shoemakers,given that a Bristol trade directory
for 1775 listed 112 shoemakers,while a directory for 1794 listed 65 shoemakers.' The
sampletherefore encompassesbetween 31 per cent and 54 per cent of the city's master
shoemakers.Thirteen of the adverts appearedin the 1770s,fourteen during the 1780s,and
The
during
1790s.
tradesmenwere categorised
twenty
the
greater
a slightly
number of
according to five overlapping criteria, representingthe various ways they made, sold, and
marketed their produce. While the evidenceof twenty-six of the adverts points to masters
dealing exclusively in ready-madefootwear, thirteen adverts suggestbespokemaking was
combined in some caseswith ready-madeproduction. This meansthat of forty-seven
adverts, thirty-nine contained evidenceof producing ready-madeshoesand boots. The
remaining eight provide evidence of mastersengagedonly in bespokework. Given that
thirteen tradesmenappearedto be engagedin both types of work, this meansthat twentyone mastersin all were involved at least to a certain extent in bespokework. This indicates
that while bespokeproduction was far from negligible, ready-madeproduction was the
most significant factor in the Bristol trade. This appearsto have been particularly the case
during the 1790s,when nineteen of the twenty adverts dealt, at least in part, with readymade products.
19
TABLE 1: 1 : SHOEMAKERS' RETAIL ADVERTS, 1769-1800

Name of tradesman
George Antrobus
Ann & William
Tilladams
Isaac Stephens
John Huish
William Tilladam
Robert Bryant
Morgan, Lawrence &
Hill
Jacob Naish
Hicks, Sevier & Lane
Joel Stuckey
J.DavisandCo.
John Blacker
Richard Roach
John Morgan
Katherine Smith
Samuel Thompson
George Millet
John Edwards
John Sevier
T. Millard
John Easterbrook
Joel Stuck
John Morgan
Thomas Standfast
William Tilladam
William Tilladam
SnowandNew
Snow and New

John Webb
Thomas Priske
John Parker
Joel Stucke
William Tilladam
T. Lawrence and Co.
Figgins and Co.
Figgins and Co.
T. Kelly
T. Wickett
ThomasHanmer
ThomasHanmer
Kelly
George King
John Withers
George King
Richard Lindon
Masters and Co
Self-description of business
Leather Clog and Patten-Maker
Shoe-Maker
Shoeand Patten-Maker
Boot, Shoe,Clog, and PattenMaker
Shoe-Maker
Cordwainer
Curriers, Shoemakers,Sadlers
Ref./Date*
FFBJ 8/7/69
BJ
19/1/71
BJ 13/7/71
Bgaz 5/3/72
B az 25/2/73
BJ 26/3/74
FFBJ 20/4/76
Boot, Shoe,Clog and Pattin-Maker

Shoe-Makers
Shoeand Boot-Maker
SFBJ 11/1/77
Bgaz 17/4/77
Bgaz 9/10/77
Shoe-Makers
SFBJ2/5/78
Heel-Maker
Shoe-Maker
Shoeand SaddleWarehouse
Shoe-Maker
Shoe and Boot-Maker
Shoeand Boot-Maker
Boot,Shoe,Clog and Patten-Maker
Boot,Shoe,Clog and Patten-Maker
Shoe,Sadler's Ironmongers
Shoe-Maker
Shoemaker,Sadler
Sadler, Shoemaker
Shoemaker
Boot and Shoemaker
FFBJ 1/8/78
SFBJ 21/11/78
B az 9/3/80
FFBJ 30/9/80
FFBJ 7/10/80
Bgaz 19/10/80
FFBJ 19/1/82
SFBJ 17/8/82
FFBJ 24/5/83
SFBJ 14/7/87
Bgaz 3/1/88
Bgaz 3/1/88
Bgaz 10/1/88
SFBJ 12/1/88
Boot andShoemaker
Boot andShoemakers
SFBJ21/6/88 if
SFBJ17/10/89
Boot and Shoemakers

Bmerc 1/3/90
Boot and ShoeWarehouse
Bgaz 12/8/90
Boot and Shoe-Maker
SFBJ 1/1/91
Boot and Shoe-Maker
Bmerc 25/7/91
Shoemaker,Sadler
FFBJ 26/5/92
Shoe-Maker
FFBJ 29/9/92
Shoeand SaddleWarehouse
FFBJ 22/6/93
Shoeand Boot Warehouse
SFBJ 22/2/94
Shoeand Boot Warehouse
SFBJ 26/4/94
Boot and ShoeWarehouse
FFBJ 28/2/95
Boot and Shoe-Maker
Bmerc 13/4/95
Shoe and Boot Warehouse
Bmerc 6/7/95
Shoe and Boot Warehouse
Bmerc 22/2/96
Boot and Shoemaker
Bgaz 24/3/96
Boot and Shoemaker
Bgaz 7/4/96
Shoe and Boot-Maker
Bgaz 19/5/96
Boot and Shoemaker
Bgaz 1/9/96
Boot and ShoeManufacturer
FFBJ 6/7/99
Cheap Boot and Shoe Warehouse
Bgaz 1/8/99
David Wall
Ladies Cheapand FashionableShoe FFBJ
Warehouse
22/11/1800
u_ xsespoxeproauction
* seefootnotes for full references
R= Ready-madeproduction
W= Wholesalers
L= London influences
F= Fashionsare marketed
Names in italics appearmore than once.
20
V,
7Vf
1(
V,
7- -7
57- 77
V,
V,
Iv
The Ready-Made Sector

Analysis of the marketing languageused in adverts clearly indicates the different methods
of production. Thus, when the mother-and-sonpartnership of Ann and William Tilladams
mentioned in 1771that they supplied `Merchantsfor Exportation' as well as `Country
Shopkeepers',a clear deduction can be made.2 If products were to be purchasedby
merchantsand shopkeepersfor final customerswho were as yet unknown then they must
be ready-made.The Tilladams must therefore have been retailing a range of footwear in
varying shapesand sizes,rather than measuringand fitting individual customers.The
production of ready-madefootwear was neither unique to Bristol nor to the eighteenth
century. Thus, June Swann notes that 'measurementswere standardisedin 1305' and that
the longevity of ready-madeproduction is inherent in the knowledge that shoeswere sold
àt the great medieval fairs'. 3Nevertheless,the trade in ready-madefootwear did grow
during the eighteenth century. Evidence of this can be seenin the fact that shoewarehouses
had become 'common by the 1780s'.4 Between 1500 and 1700 there was a drift across
Europe away from `bespokemanufacture' and towards the production of `ready made'
goods. This was evident in England as elsewhere:in Northampton, for example, a `readymade shoe industry had emerged' by the late seventeenthcentury which produced a
`standardrange of footwear' for the `burgeoning London market'. 5Nevertheless,the extent
to which the trade in a particular locality was divided between the ready-madeand bespoke
sectorshas not yet been fully established.The Bristol adverts certainly indicate that readymade production was an important element of the trade. Adverts that offered footwear on
wholesale terms or for the export market were synonymouswith ready-madeproduction.
Thus, the ready-madenature of John Huish's trade in 1772 is evident in his ability to trade
on both a `Wholesale and Retail' basis, as well as in his informing the `Merchants and
Captains of Ships' that they could be `supplied for Exportation'. 6 The ability to provide
ready-madeitems was equally evident in Robert Bryant's pledge in 1774 to offer
favourable terms to `Shopkeeperswho shall take a Quantity of the above Goods to sell
7
again'.
The wholesale aspectof the ready-madetrade was also apparent in adverts posted by the
partnership of Morgan, Lawrence, and Hill. In 1776 they targeted their goods to
`Merchants, Captains of Ships, Tradesmen,and Country Shopkeepers',and
stressedto the
`Public' that their goods were as `cheapas at any Manufactory in England'. 8 A
similar
clientele was sought by John Edwards in 1782 when he assured`Merchants, Captains of
Ships, and Country Shopkeepers'that they could be `supplied the
9
On
Notice'.
on
shortest
occasionsspecific types of footwear were advertised.Thus, in 1783 T. Millard notified
21
SHOES
Womens'
STUFF
buyers
his
Quantity
`large
to
and
of
of
a
wish sell
potential
10
(sic)'.
During the 1790sa greater
PUMPS' for either Èxportation or Home Consumption
T.
Thus,
Lawrence
in
became
to
the
welcomed
advertisements.
reference warehouses
norm
in
1793
(sic)'
them
SADDLE
his
`SHOE
WAREHOUSE
to
and
welcomed
and
customers
11
to an ìnspection of the goods'. In 1794, advertspostedby Figgins and Company for their
`Shoeand Boot Warehouse' marked a new developmentin the marketing of ready-made
footwear, as they boastedthat `Ladies may be supplied without having the Trouble of
bespeakingtheir Shoes,and equally as good'. 12This representeda new marketing strategy;
no previous adverts had claimed that ready-madeshoeswere as good as those made to
for
the norm among
However,
than
ploy,
this
marketing
a
measure.
was probably no more
Thus,
Masters
than
and
to
quality.
ready-madeadverts was stresscheapnessrather
Company advertisedin 1799that à Very great variety' of shoeswere àlways kept ready
made', the clear selling point being that they were `considerably cheaperthan at any other
Warehousein this City'. 13
The predominanceof ready-madegoods in the adverts can be explained by three factors;

namely an increasein domestic demand,an expanding export market,'and wartime
demandsfor footwear. Firstly, domestic demandreceived a major boost from the growing
increased
from
5.8
England's
1751
1801
Between
population
national population.
and
domestic
8.7
increase
As
50
the
to
a
result,
market
million
million, an
of
per cent.
increasedin volume.14 Given that all membersof the community required the skills of the
shoemaker,for as Hobsbawm and Scott argue shoes(unlike clothes) could not be made at
home, then the growing demandarosefrom all sections of society.15Considering that
it
is
for
or
merchants,
many adverts earmarkedgoods
middlemen such as shopkeepers
entirely possible that Bristol's shoemakerssupplied the national market. Indeed, the
authors of two contemporary trade dictionaries commentedon the sale in London of shoes
made in provincial centres.In 1747, Campbell commentedthat London's `Sale-Shops'
were full of shoesprovided by `Country Shopkeepers'.According to Mortimer in 1819
London sold `vast quantities of inferior kinds of shoes' from Scotland, Staffordshire and
òther parts of England'. 16It is therefore possible that Bristol-made shoeswere also
entering this burgeoning market during theseyears. This impression is reinforced by an
advert placed by a London shoewarehousein the Bristol press in May 1776, requestingto
be supplied with shoesby `Master Shoemakersin Bristol'. 17Demand for shoeswithin
Bristol itself was far from negligible; after London, Bristol had the secondhighest urban
18
for
population
most of the eighteenthcentury. Thus, although Bristol's population
growth, from 55,000 in 1770 to 60,000 in 1800, was not as dramatic as elsewherein the
22
19
during
late
from
high
the
country
eighteenthcentury, the city neverthelessstarted
a
point.
There is, thus, no doubting the size of the Bristol market. An estimate of the annual
consumption of shoesamong Bristol's residentsis possible from contemporary sources.
According to John Rees,a Bristol mastershoemaker,in 1813 the averageBristolian
20
`four
in
consumed
pairs of shoes the year'. On the basis of population figures, this
suggeststhat Bristol's residentsrequired 220,000 pairs of shoesin 1770 and 240,000pairs
per year by 1800. Although other evidencedoesnot exist to substantiateRees's claims, it
is undeniablethat the market for shoesamong Bristol residentsalone was a very large one.
Secondly, domestic demandwas, of course,supplementedby Bristol's position as a major
port. Not surprisingly then, many advertsreferred to the secondfactor stimulating demand
for ready-madegoods, namely the export trade. According to contemporariessuch as
Mortimer, the export trade in footwear was a sizeablebusiness,as `considerablequantities'
of British-made shoeswere exported to Europe, Asia, Africa, the Americas, and the West
Indies.21Bristol undoubtedly had a major stake in this trade. According to Hoppit, London
and Bristol 'controlled the great majority of England's overseastrade' in the eighteenth
century. And the trade dominanceof Bristol increasedduring the eighteenth century as `the
colonial trade tended to shift to the western seaports'22Bristol's export trade reflected the
diversity of its economy. Glass, copper, brassand woollen produce formed the mainstay of
the city's exports, and the North American and West Indies were the most significant
markets, claiming over one-third of exports in the early 1770sand over one-half in the late
1790s.23Shoesformed an important element of this trade and evidence of this can be seen
in the contemporary newspapersources.In the 1790s,for example, the shoemaking
partnership of Bence and Lock featured among the lists of Bristol exporters. One recent
study of shoemakingnotes that `large quantities of shoes' were exported to the Caribbean
24
North
America
`from
London
In this respectparallels existed between
Bristol'.
and
and
Bristol and such French shoemakingcentresas Marseille, Bordeaux and Nantes which
likewise produced shoesfor `colonial as well as domestic markets'.25
Thirdly, given the ubiquitous need for footwear, shoemakingwas among those trades best
able to cope with the loss of export markets, due to wars, for example. Military conflict
existed during half the period between 1770 and 1800 and both the American War of
Independence(1775-83) and the Napoleonic War (1793-1802) seriously decimated
export
26
markets. As a result of the former, the annual averageof Atlantic shipping arriving in
Bristol decreasedfrom 21,202 tons in 1773-77 to 12,326tons in 1778-80. By 1797,
as a
result of the war with France,the annual tonnageof shipping entering Bristol had
23
decreasedby 38 per cent on its 1792 level? ' Closure of export markets could normally be
expectedto seriously affect the need for ready-madeproducersto advertisetheir goods.
However, qualitative evidencegleanedfrom the adverts suggeststhe opposite; businesses
in the ready-madefootwear sector if anything found trade more buoyant in wartime than
during peacetime.Thus, of the forty-seven advertsre-covered,twenty-eight were placed
during war years. The prominenceof adverts for ready-madeproduce during the war years
is telling for other reasons.Ten of the fourteen adverts during the American War were
during
fourteen
the
adverts
placed
all
purely concernedwith ready-madegoods, while
French Wars were concernedwith ready-madegoods, nine of them exclusively. This is not
far
from
factors.
American
following
Firstly,
the
the
the
colonies
were
surprising given
in
`swift
for
There
British
goods exported to
a
rise'
example,
only recipients of
goods.
was,
Canadaafter 1776,while trade with the West Indies had always claimed a larger shareof
Bristol goods than America.28Secondly,the shoemakingtrade was insulated againstthe
loss of some markets due to the fact that shoeswere actually in sharp demanddue to the
from
`standing
itself.
has
the
Indeed
James
Farr
that
the
of
armies'
growth
war
posited
seventeenthcentury onwardsprovided a very real stimulus to the ready-madetrade, with
29
During
Europe'.
the result that `boots were turned out of countlessartisan shopsacross
the English Civil War, for example, one tradesmanreceived orders from the Royalist army
for `seventhousandshoes'.30Giorgio Riello, likewise, believes that wartime orders
had
`large
`the
to
quantities
since
shoes
stimulated
creation of a ready-to-wear market'
of
be produced in short times and in standardisedways', when the Navy purchased`more
than one million pairs of shoes' from four shoemakingconcernsbetween `1760 and
1790' 31
Demand generatedby the two wars brought into sharp focus the ready-madenature of the
Bristol trade. In Bristol, civic subscriptionswere collected in order to purchaseshoes,
among other items, for British soldiers. In January 1776, for example,Felix Farley's
Bristol Journal mentioned that collections had been made for the `relief of the British
soldiers in America', and noted that `three considerabletradesmen' had been given an
32
large
for
à
order
number of shoes'. In November 1793, collections for the relief of
British soldiers in Flanders resulted in an order being placed for `FIFTEEN HUNDRED
PAIRS OF STRONG SHOES (sic)'. This time, one firm, Bence and Lock met the majority
3
demand.
These examplesemphasisehow military orders compensatedfor the loss
of the
of export markets. However, perhapsthe key litmus test of demand during the war years
was the demand for labour. Available evidence suggeststhis was high. Thus, in September
1775,Felix Farley's Bristol Journal mentioned that there was à scarcity of journeymen
24
shoemakersin the men's ways in this city' and proceededto acknowledge that `good
34
workmen are much wanted'. Likewise, in June 1777 a committee of striking journeymen
shoemakersadmitted that `Trade is very brisk and Men scarce'; a claim reinforced by their
35
for
masterswho placed a collective advertisement 1,000 men. The high demandfor
labour was reflected in other advertisementsin the years 1776 and 1777.While the firm of
Bence and Lock required àny Number of Hands', Morgan, Lawrence and Hill posted
adverts for one hundredjourneymen, William Edwards and Company required fifty
journeymen, and William Tilladams sought betweentwenty and thirty men.36A similar
demandfor labour existed among the larger London shoemakingconcerns,which also
37
for
labour in the Bristol pressduring theseyears. Adverts for such large
advertised
numbers of men do not appearin peacetimeor non-strike years. Thus, they were not seen
again until the 1790s.In April 1794, for example,Figgins and Company posted a notice
that simply stated, 'ONE HUNDRED MEN WANTED IMMEDIATELY (sic)'. 38Clearly,
the demandsof war stimulated the trade in the 1790sjust as it had in the late 1770s.Both
the nature of wartime demand,and the structuresof the export market, reinforced the
centrality of the ready-madesectorwithin Bristol's shoemakingtrade.
The Bespoke Sector
As we have seen,only eight of the twenty-one adverts relating to bespokework did not
also advertise ready-madegoods.Bespokework was marketed in a quite different way to
the way in which the quantities and cheapnessof ready-madegoods were stressed.By
contrast, the marketing of bespokework entailed a languageof personal service and the
offering of a service, in place of goods.A Bath shoemakernamed Thomas Haynes
expressedthe more individual manner in which the bespoketrade operated,advising
customerswho resided at some distance from the city to `have them made by sending a
boot or shoethat fits them'. 39Again emphasisingthe personal nature of the service, many
of Bristol's bespokeproducerswere seemingly willing to journey a fair distanceto attend
their clientele. In July 1769, for example, George Antrobus advised `LADIES and
GENTLEMEN (sic)' either ìn Town or Country' that they `will be waited on'. 40Likewise
in 1796 George King advised his bespokecustomersthat they would be `waited' on' at
41
houses'.
Such languagetypified the bespokemarket, as one would not attend
their own
customersat their home if they were merely purchasing cheap,ready-madeitems that
could be sent by carriage. This languagereflected the provision of a personal service
whereby the footwear was specially measuredfor the individual client, and for this reason
bespokeadverts were devoid of product advertising. A typical
example is provided by an
advert placed by Richard Roach in November 1778. Upon moving premises, Roach merely
25
thanked his customersfor their past `Favours' and informed them that he intended
`carrying on the Businessin all its different Branches' at his new place of business42
Repeateduse of the word `favour' was a hallmark of thesebespokeshoemakers.In 1780,
for example, SamuelThompson thanked his customers`for the many Favours conferr'd on
him (sic)', while George Millet welcomed a `continuanceof their future Favours'; both
43
for
men offered a service rather than specific goods
sale.
It would appearthat the bespokemarket was an attractive proposition. Thus, William
Tilladams's decision to enter this sector despitehis previous concentration in the readymade sector. In September1792, an advert placed by Tilladams contained no references
whatsoeverto ready-madeproducts. In languagefar removed from the advertising of
ready-madegoods, Tilladams thanked `thoseLadies and Gentlemen who have so
distinguishingly honoured him with their favors (sic)', and affirmed that they `shall be
44
houses'.
The deferential tone of the languageindicates that
waited on at their own
bespokework was oriented towards a higher class of clientele than that of ready-made
produce. John Easterbrookundoubtedly representedthe top-end of the bespokemarket
when he offered his serviceson the basis of having `given great Satisfaction to the first
Nobility in London' as well as the `Prince of Wales and Duke of York'. 5However,
despitethisythe bespokemarket should not be seenas homogenous.Thus, while
Easterbrookrepresentedthe most exclusive end, T. Kelly typified the cheaperaspectof
this sector. In February 1795,Kelly, who also operateda `CheapBOOT and SHOE
Warehouse(sic)', offered a price list that merely charged an extra six pence for bespoke
shoes.In a later advert he claimed that `Ladies and Gentlemen's bespokework' was served
46
`the
on
shortestnotice'. Kelly perhapstherefore representeda blurring of boundaries
between the two sectorsand possibly an attempt on the part of ready-mademen to offer
cheaperand faster bespokeoptions. In this endeavour,Kelly was far from alone. Thus,
Thomas Hanmer, a predominantly ready-madeproducer, also advertised in the mid-1790s
that he conductedbespokework `with exact neatness'and òn the lowest terms'. 7
Therefore while convenienceand cheapnesswere the primary marketing tools of readymade produce, the bespokesector encompassedthe realms of exclusivity and quality. At
the sametime, however, there are signs that some ready-madeproducers also offered a
cheaperbespokeoption.
In this regardBristol's shoemakingtrademay havemirroredthat of eighteenth-century

Londoncharacterised
by Rule,wherebythe rich `bespoke'part of the tradewasdefined
largely by the ability `to allow rich customerscredit' 4' Likewise,Riello
in
that
the
asserts
.
26
between
`different
there
producer/retailer and
was a
ready-madesector
relationship
49
Evidence
`bespoke
the
credit'.
consumer
allowed
customer' as only
customerwas
for
business
for
it
this
that
move
ready-made
study
gathered
suggests
was not a wise
due
`many
Kelly
T.
in
for
Thus,
that
to
1795,
to
stated
producers offer credit.
example
Lossesand Disappointments' suffered from offering credit terms, he would no longer sell
footwear unless `the money is paid on delivery of the goods'.50The majority of readyby
Figgins
`Ready
Money
those
the
such
as
placed
only',
made adverts endedwith
words
lack
George
By
Company
in
in
1796.51
1794
King
the
contrast,
of referenceto
and
and
by
bespoke
hostility
in
to
terms
exclusively
adverts placed
prices and absenceof
credit
producers, suggestsagain that thesetradesmenwere positioned at the most prosperousend
of the trade. However, in the absenceof other evidence,such as the accountbooks of
individual enterprises,such a conclusion must remain conjectural, and of a rather
impressionistic nature.
London and the Role of Fashion

By 1800, whether one was a bespokeor ready-madeproducer, the marketing language
deployed had come to encompassreferenceto London connections and/or fashionable
goods. Until 1787 adverts were devoid of such references.Only thirteen adverts mentioned
these factors (see Table 1:1) and the majority were confined to the 1790s.The 1790s
therefore witnessedan apparently developing contrast to the 1770sand 1780s.During this
decade,ten of the twenty adverts located contained referenceseither to fashion or to
London, or to both. Given that London was a centre of excellence for many tradesit is
hardly surprising that it should act as a benchmark.Mortimer explained that London was
the place where the `bestmen's shoesare manufactured', being known as `town-made',
while Rule has posited that London was a place where the `large-scalemanufactureof
52
in
clothes and shoeswas especially evident' the eighteenth century. However, London's
position at the epicentre of shoeproduction long pre-dated 1787, the year in which the first
referenceto the capital was found in the Bristol adverts. Why then did master shoemakers
not refer to London connectionsbefore this date?The answer may lie in the words of John
Easterbrook, author of the 1787 advert. Easterbrooknot only offered to provide `Calf Skin
and Cordovan Boots made after the London Plan (sic)', but mentioned that he had once
served the `first Nobility in London. 53This suggeststhat Easterbrook had perhapsfairly
recently arrived from London, and his arrival and competition in itself may have
galvanised Bristol's shoemakers.Local masterswere no doubt aware of the more relaxed
attitude of the Corporation to `foreigners' since the last attempt to impose penalties for
`freeman' status on outsiders during the 1760s.54Although tradesmenfrom
outside Bristol
27
free
freemen,
become
the
to
era
of
had always enteredthe city, and paid the requisite sum
late
Bristol
in
1780s.
the
and open competition was a relatively recent phenomenon
by
the
have
asserting
to
this
competition
of
to
source
new
retaliated
shoemakersseem
for
1788,
In
June
London
example,
their
a
yardstick.
as
using
goods
and
own
quality of
LEGS'
`London
BOOT
he
had
and
William Tilladams advertisedthat not only
obtained
`London BACK SOLES (sic)', but that he made ladies' shoesthat were `not inferior to any
" Likewise in late 1789 and early 1790 the partnership of Snow and New
in
London'.
made
be
`made
Soles',
to
Legs
best
London
which
were
`determined
to purchasethe
and
were
56
King's
George
two
And,
in
London'.
inferior
in
finished
to
when
any
a style not
and
in
London'
be
his
Àrticles
and
any
good
as
1796
as
that
shall
clients
assured
of
adverts
`made in the London taste' this reinforced the esteemfor the materials and workmanship of
fact
by
57
indicated
that
be
the
some
to
That
the capital.
such esteemwas growing seems
by
their
local
in
looked
the
emphasising
market
to
tradesmenactually
capture a gap
in
July
London'
`from
in
Bristol
Lindon
Richard
knowledge.
Thus
arrived
metropolitan
1799 with a clear businessplan; to capture the local market in `HESSIAN WRINKLED
BOOTS (sic)'. In this respect,he noted that `Gentlemen' had previously been at a loss to
58
from
1787
London
Growing
to
London'.
`without
to
reference
sending
acquire them
Bristol's
that
threat
have
the
therefore
competitive
growing
reflected
onwards may
by
London-made
the
both
felt
and
the
goods
of
nature
superior
of
shoemakers
as a result
itself.
from
the
capital
arrival of someseeminglywell-connectedshoemakers
Such developmentsshould, however, not be seenin isolation from a wider growth in
fashion consciousness.The marketing of fashion in Bristol advertisementsdid not come
into vogue until the early 1790s.The first such referencearises in an advert placed by
Thomas Priske in January 1791, when he mentioned that he sold `Ladies most fashionable
Fancy-Leather and Sandal'd Shoes'.59Thomas Harmer placed a similar advertisementin
July 1795 ; informing the public that he had just acquired a stock of `fashionable fancy and
60
in
footwear
had
fashions
(sic)'.
By
LEATHERS
the
striped
mid-1790s, marketing of
he
for
Harmer
that
In
February
1796,
stated
to
example,
extended seasonalvariations.
61
(sic)'.
Kelly
for
Summer
`lay
in
Articles
fashionable
the
season
would soon
some
leather
`boot
development
he
this
of
and
mirrored
when advertised a recently arrived stock
legs' that were `suitable for the Spring and Summer wear'. 2 The majority of referencesto
fashion were far from detailed or sophisticated.Thus George King merely assertedthat his
`Shoes(were) the most fashionable', while John Withers advertised that he had `madeup a
63
(sic)'.
In July 1799 Richard Lindon was
Assortment
GOODS
genteel
of FASHIONABLE
not slow to associatehis London experienceswith fashionable practices, advertising that
28
he provided an èlegantAssortment of FashionableLadies' and Gentlemens' BOOTS and

SHOES (sic)', and further reminding customersthat he previously worked at a
64
`fashionableBoot Manufactory' on the `Strand' in London. The term `fashionable' had
by
into
its
idiom
by
In
the
the
the
of
century.
addition,
clearly worked way
end
marketing
its very nature the existencein Bristol of the ladies' branch suggestedthat fashionswere
cateredfor. Swannposits that `close contact with high society and fashion' were essential
for this sector, and assertsthat London and Bristol constituted two of the main centresof
65
in
ladies'
footwear.
This developmentfurther explains the growing use of
the trade
fashion as a selling point by the 1790s.Thus, as these,and other, examplesindicate the
term `fashionable' had clearly worked its way into marketing idiom by the end of the
century.
TAILORS
In contrast to the shoemakingtrade the division in tailoring was more disposedtowards
bespokerather than ready-madeproduction. This was because,as David Alexander has
explained, `tailoring was primarily a bespoketrade' as ready-madeclothes were primarily
66
ìn
for
"off
the rack" sales'. While a trade in ready-madeclothes was
made
slack periods
not unimportant to the trade in Bristol, marketing of the tailor's bespoke skills was the
primary function of advertising. This entailed detailing a different range of categories,
since bespokeproduce was intrinsic to tailoring itself, while the sale of ready-madeclothes
was for most tradesmena sideline. A discussionof the adverts can help enlighten this
matter.
Table 1:2 illustrates how the advertisementsdetailed the manner in which tailors produced,
marketed and retailed their goods. Forty-three adverts were recovered, representingthirtyfive separateindividual tradesmenand partnershipsin all. This can be taken as a good
sized sample of the city's tailors, given that a Bristol trade directory for 1775 listed 101
tailors, while a directory for 1794 listed 86 tailors.67The sample therefore represents
between 35 and 40 per cent of Bristol's tailoring establishmentsin this period. Nineteen of
the newspaperinsertions arise from the 1770s,while the 1780sand 1790sare represented
by twelve each. The adverts themselvesrepresenta valuable source of evidence.
McKendrick's study of consumerismin this period has confirmed that `trade cards backed
up by newspaperadvertisements'were àn important part of the shopkeepers'promotional
efforts', and that they were linked to the growth of the market since trade cards hardly
existed `before the eighteenth century' 68 In a growing market advertisementsand `trade
cards allowed the shopkeeperto advertise the quality of his sho as well as his goods'.69
29
UNIVERSITY
OFBRISTOL
With regardsto production methodsthe advertshave been categorisedby three

overlapping criteria. Firstly, those that advertisedtheir businessthrough a personal
languageof service, as seenin the more exclusive adverts for bespoke shoemakers.
Secondly, those that advertisedthe particular items they were able to make, usually
accompaniedby a price list. Thirdly, there were those who either made or retailed secondhand clothes in addition to the normal tailoring service. The overlap between adverts
offering a service and those offering products was not that great. Out of forty-three adverts,
thesetwo criteria claimed seventeeneach,and only the remaining nine adverts offered both
facilities. A clearer correlation occurred betweenproduct marketing and ready-made
adverts; out of fourteen adverts offering ready-madeclothes only one did not also market
products. In common with the shoemakingtrade, the adverts indicate a growth in the
ready-madetrade by the 1790s.While the adverts from the 1770shad been split equally
between service and product marketing, eight of the twelve adverts from the 1790sdealt
exclusively with product marketing and ready-madeclothes.
The Bespoke Service
In common with bespokeadverts in the shoemakingtrade, numerous Bristol tailors also
employed a languageof personal service in order to court the custom of the more
distinguished ranks of society. In March 1769, for example, Robert Norton thanked those
`Gentlemenand Ladies who have already employ'd him (sic)', and assuredthose in `Town
or Country' who `may indulge him with their Orders' that they should be èxecutedin the
compleatestManner (sic)9.70This languagebore the hallmarks of appeal to a higher-class
clientele. Thus, it was deferential in tone and focused on providing satisfaction rather than
on cheapnessor value for money. In November 1771,John Thomas likewise employed
deferential languagewhen he addressed`those Gentlemen and Ladies that shall pleaseto
Favour him with their Commands', while in May 1773 William Merryman looked to those
7'
`please
favour
him
Commands'
for
his
future
to
who
with their
custom. Fortunatus
Hagley employed similar languagein February 1776 when hoping to 'merit the Favours'
of `Gentlemenand Ladies' and made it his `constantstudy to execute their Orders with
Neatnessand Punctuality'. 72What can be termed an advertising idiom in this sectorwas
further reinforced by Robert Bayly who thanked his customersfor `their past Favours',
and
assuredthem that in future business`will be duly attendedto' and `gratefully
73
acknowledged'. Such languagewas often used when a change in circumstancessuch as
an accident or move of premisesrequired tradesmento notify their existing clientele. In
October 1789, for instance,Henry Nevill askedhis customersto
excusehim for not
`personally waiting on his friends' due to a broken leg;
again reflecting the degreeof
30
TABLE 1:2 : TAILORS' RETAIL ADVERTS, 1769-1800

Name of tradesman
JamesSmith
G. Croom
Robert Norton
John Totterdell
G. Croom
Robert Norton
James Gerrish
John Thomas
Robert Norton
William Merryman
Isaac Amos
F. Lloyd
Edward Evans
James Gerrish
Robert Haynes &
George McCarthy
Samuel Willy
Robert Bayly
Fortunatus Hagley
Case
Henry Richards
William Dukes
JamesDavis
George Hamilton
John Neter
William Trotman
George Cole
JohnBrowne
William Hunt
John Biss and Son
William Palmer
Henry Nevill
Pere rine Phillips
William Budd
Robert Tripp
George Withy &
Son
Andrew Foley
Self-description of business
Taylor and Habit-Maker
Taylor and Stay-Maker
Woollen-Draper and Taylor
Taylor and Stay-Maker
Woollen-Draper, Taylor and StayMaker
Taylor, Woollen-Draper, Hosier
Draper, Taylor and Stay-Maker
Taylor
Woollen-Draper, Taylor, Hosier,
Habit-Maker
Woollen-Drapers, Taylors, HabitMakers, Salesmen
Taylor
Woollen-Draper, Taylor, Salesman
Stay-Maker and Taylor
Taylor, Habit-Maker, WoollenDraper
Taylor, Habit-Maker
Taylor, Stay-Maker and HabitMaker
Taylor, Draper, Salesman
Taylors and Habit-Makers
Taylor and Fancy-DressMaker
Ref./Date*
FFBJ 7/1/69
BJ 11/2/69
BJ 11/3/69
BJ 7/7/70
BJ 4/8/70
Bgaz 11/4/71
Bgaz 1/8/71
Bgaz 14/11/71
Bgaz 4/3/73
BJ 1/5/73
Bgaz 3/3/74
FFBJ 7/5/74
FFBJ 14/5/74
Bgaz 26/5/74
17
11
17
77-
FFBJ 15/9/87
Bmerc 31/1/91
RobertTripp
Draper,Men's mercer,Tailor,
Habit-Maker,Salesman
Bgaz5/9/93
Robert Tripp
Moran, Burnell and
Morgan
Davis
Robert Tripp
Biss and Norton
Taylor & Salesman
Bgaz 24/3/96
TaylorsandHabit-Makers
FFBJ2/4/96
Ladies' Habit-Maker and Taylor

Arm Taylor
Tailors, Habit-Makers, WoollenDrapers. Salesmen
Draper, Men's mercer, Regimental
Taylor
FFBJ 1/10/96
FFBJ 22/7/97
Bgaz 18/4/99
FFBJ 22/11/1800
, anguageui rersonai service

* seefootnotes for lull references
Marketing of products
Ready-madeclothes
F= Fashionsare marketed
London influences
Names in italics appearmore than once
1( It
SFBJ 12/5/87
Taylor & Salesman
31
Bgaz 9/2/75
BJ 23/9/75
FFBJ 10/2/76
FFBJ 30/10/79
B az 30/3/80
FFBJ 3/6/80
FFBJ 21/4/81
FFBJ 16/8/83
SFBJ 10/9/85
SFBJ 14/4/87
Taylors, Habit-Makers
oP=
R=
L=
Bgaz 2/6/74
Bgaz 7/2/88
FFBJ 7/6/88
Bgaz 25/9/88
FFBJ 10/10/89
B az 25/2/90
SFBJ 26/6/90
Bmerc 27/9/90
SFBJ 20/11/90
Robert Tripp
1(
7V
If
74
by
In
October
least
bespoke
1796when Davis
personal service provided
masters.
at
some
moved premiseshe was keen to retain his customerbaseas he wrote that he `humbly
75
honoured
been
he
has
Favors
requestsa continuanceof those
with'. These
already
adverts made use of a deferential marketing idiom, and were thus clearly intended for a
more select audienceof higher-classcustomers.
However, a more competitive side to tailoring was also in evidence among tradesmenwho
offered cheapervariations on bespokeproduction. An important figure in this development
was George Croom. In February 1769, for example, Croom offered a much lower rate if
the customer were to bring their own materials. While a plain suit normally cost five
pounds and three shillings, the chargewas only ten shillings for `the Making only' on the
basis that `the Customer (is) to find Cloth and Materials'. 76In effect the customerwas only
left to pay for labour costs,which in this instancerepresentedaround ten per cent (9.7%) of
total cost. Among the other items that Croom offered to prepare at `Making only' rates
were a `Ladies JeanDress', a `Livery Coat, Waistcoat & ShagBreeches', and `Cloth
Great-Coatsand Surtouts (sic)'. 77Croom was clearly attempting to market a cheaperway
of obtaining clothes, which though reinforced by his claim to operate òn the lowest
Terms', does not appearto have been endorsedby the official face of tailoring in Bristol. 78
Indeed Croom's reputation as a cheapproducer earnedhim the wrath of Bristol's
`Company of Taylors'. In August 1770 he reported that the latter were òffended at his
advertising for Businesson moderateTerms' and had launched what he describedas a
`malicious Prosecution' against him for not being a member of the Company.79Croom
claimed that he could not afford the thirty-pound `fine' for membership, as ìt would
render him unable to conform to the above Prices', and simply moved from Old-Market
into St. Philips where the company had no jurisdiction. 80While it would appearthat the
official face of Bristol tailoring in Bristol were hostile with regardsto Croom's cheaper
alternatives to bespoketrading, Croom was not the only tradesmanto offer this facility.
Thus, JamesSmith also offered a charge for `making only' on several items. While a plain
frock suit with gold buttons cost five pounds this was reduced to eight and a half shillings
for the `making only', meaning that the labour costs of the original item represented8.5
$'
per cent of the cost. Likewise, in May 1774, F. Lloyd advertised that the `making only' of
a `plain Suit' costjust ten shillings comparedto the usual charge of one pound and ten
82
shillings. Edward Evans also provided this option as a `drest Suit' cost four pounds and
ten shillings, yet only ten shillings for the making. Therefore 11 per cent of this item
consistedof labour costs, and Evans also invited customers `to find their own
32
Trimmings'. 83In October 1779 Caseoffered a price of four pounds and eleven shillings for
a plain frock suit, which was discountedto eleven shillings for the `making only',
84
12
representingonly
per cent of the original cost. In April 1796 Moran, Burnell, and
Morgan also advertisedthat items could be made at `very reducedprices' were the `Ladies
85
Gentlemen..
find
Materials'. This kind of facility was
to
their
and
own
cloth
and
.
undoubtedly offered due to the fact that materials representedthe lion's shareof clothing
costs. Many potential customers,moreover, would have had accessto material because,as
Fine and Leopold establish,fabrics were the `consumerdurable' of the period, and clothes
86
`passed
down
from
were often
one generationto the next'. Therefore an element among
the tailoring trade, in common with developmentsin shoemaking,offered a cheapervariety
of bespokework.
Ready-Made Clothes
Of course, ready-madeclothes representedan even cheaperoption. According to John
Styles, by the 1740s `civilian ready-madeclothes for men' in London were basedon a
`numerical sizing system', which had become `generalpublic knowledge' by the 1780s.87
Indeed Johnson's dictionary of 1755 defined a `Salesman'as Òne who sells cloaths ready
88
made'. Among the tradesmenrepresentedin Table 1:2, six partly describedthemselvesas
`Salesmen'.Typical of such adverts was that posted by the partnership of Robert Haynes
and GeorgeMcCarthy in June 1774. The insertion mentioned that they `make and sell all
Sorts of CLOATHS (sic)', implying a separationof the production and vending process,
and further mentioned that Àll Sorts of Cloathing and Bedding for Seamen(sic)' was
89
`Merchants
to
Masters
Ships'
`most
Terms'.
This
supplied
and
of
on the
reasonable
indicates that Haynes and McCarthy had fairly large stocks of ready-madeproduce ready
to be bought up wholesale, revealing a similar processto that which existed in the
shoemakingtrade. In May 1787, George Cole thanked his customersfor doing business
with him in his `ready-madeCloaths Line (sic)', though the quality of such produce was
clearly a live issue. Cole thus reactedto `Complaints of Goods ripping' which he stated
had been òften made', and he resolved to `make up every Article under his own
Inspection', promising that his goods would be as good as `though bespoke'.90This too
bore the hallmarks of marketing in the ready-madeshoe industry in the latter
eighteenth
century.
According to Styles, the whole raison d'etre

of the `ready-madeclothes-seller was to
provide a garment that looked and wore like a piece of bespoke clothing'. 91This was part
of a trend in èarly modern manufactures' to produce 'cheap products that copied
33
2
expensiveobjects' and `ready-madeclothing representsone example of this practice'.
Other examplesof such processesalso exist in the Bristol adverts. Thus, GeorgeWithy and
Son mirrored developmentsin shoemakingwhen they advertisedtheir `CLOATHS
WAREHOUSE (sic)' in November 1790.They listed a `Stock' of various coats,
waistcoats, and breeches,and noted that there was a `Good allowance to Wholesale
Dealers who buy to sell again', thereby providing further evidence of the developmentof
93
in
No tradesmanrepresentedthis aspectof the
Bristol
ready-madeproduction of clothes
trade better than Robert Tripp who retailed items such as coats,waistcoats, and breechesat
4
deemed
he
`his usual extreme low Charges'. His businessmost closely resembled
what
those shoemakerswho cateredfor the overseasmarket, as he remarked that he servedthe
`Navy, Merchants, Captains,Shopkeepers'either for `wholesale,retail, and for
included
(sic)'
CLOTHES
`READY-MADE
The
a coat,
exportation'.
price-list of
95
Such
developments
hat
breeches,
must
shoes.
shirts,
and
waistcoat,
as well as
stockings,
be seenin the context of the demandfor Europeanexports in North America, and indicate
that it was not just shoemakerswho benefited from the export trade.
By the latter eighteenthcentury Bristol shipping exports included many referencesto
`Wearing Apparel' being sent to Newfoundland, Quebec,Ireland, South Carolina,
Grenada,and Barbados.96Despite this, very little mention was made in tailors' adverts of
supplying exports, in comparisonto shoemaking.Some tailors, like shoemakers,did
clearly benefit, however, from supplying the armed forces, especially during periods of
war. Tripp, in particular, describedhimself as an Àrmy Taylor' in July 1797, and
mentioned that he had clothed àll his Majesty's Regiments of Regulars and Militia' which
had passedthrough Bristol in the previous four years. 7 Thus, it seemsclear that it was not
only shoemakerswho could make money from the demandsof the wartime market. This
was certainly also the caseelsewhere.Sonenschernotes, for example, that the `size and
vitality' of the Parisian tailoring trade in the eighteenth century was `derived from military
and naval commissions and the large amount of ancillary and sub-contractedwork that
they generated'.98Tradesmensuch as Tripp representedthe Bristol equivalent of this
development; in November 1800 he advertisedthat `the Army and Navy arc supplied at
this Warehousewith all kinds of Cloathing' and other supplies99 Biss and Norton also
catered for the military and foreign markets; they made `Military and Naval Uniforms' as
'
`West
India
foreign
Orders'.
They also retailed ready-made
well as serving
and other
goods, selling waistcoats, pantaloons,and other items on `moderateterms' and invited àn
'0'
inspection
early
of the above'. Obviously, one could hardly claim the latter unless one
has a stock of ready-madeitems for retail. All this suggests,then, that the development
of
34
standing armies and the experienceof war had an equally important impact on ready-made
clothes production as on shoemaking.Thus, Hoppit notes that wars `were a godsendto
those who supplied the combatants' with items such as clothing, ammunition, food and
drink. 102According to Farr, the genesisof the ready-madetrade in clothes occurred, as it
had in shoemaking,in the two centuriesbetween 1500 and 1700. Demand was similarly
fed by a `burgeoning London market', and crucially by the need to clothe `standing armies'
from the seventeenthcentury onwards.103Thus, in 1642 one London tradesmanreceived
orders from the Royalist army for `nine thousandcoats and shirts'; an example that attests
to the longevity of ready-madeproduction.104Similarly, Lemire attributes the `first largescaleproduction of common, ready-madeapparel' to the orders given to merchantsby the
demandto clothe sailors in the navy.'05
However, several factors suggestthat wars and export markets were less important aspects
of the tailoring businessin Bristol. Firstly, very few tailoring adverts refer to export
markets, unlike their shoemakingcounterparts.Secondly, bespokeproduction was clearly
the most important aspectof the trade, with the selling of ready-madeclothes seenas a
sideline. In February 1775, for example, Samuel Willy was keen to advertise his trade in
`ready-madeand second-handCloaths of all Sorts (sic)', but also eagerto remind readers
that he `likewise makes Clothes for Gentlemen'.106In February 1788, William Hunt was
likewise keen to correct a `mistake' in `the minds of some' that he was unable `to make
Gentlemen's Cloaths on account of his keeping a sale shop (sic)9.107
Hunt hoped to regain
credibility by stating that he had `serveda regular apprenticeshipwith an approvedmaster
in the tayloring businessbefore he enteredinto the sale trade (sic)'. 108This advert, in
particular, draws attention to the greaterprestige in which bespokework was held, as well,
no doubt, as its greaterprofitability to the tradesman.Indeed, this is reinforced by the
descriptions of tailors in the two trade directories of 1775 and 1794. In 1775 only sevenout
of 101 tailors were listed as `salesmen',while the remaining 94 were listed as 'tailors'.
Meanwhile, in 1794, only 4 out of 86 tailors were listed as `salesmen',while a further 3
were listed jointly as `salesmenand tailors', and the remaining 79 were listed purely as
'tailors'. 109All this suggeststhat export markets and the ready-madetrade were not as
important factors in Bristol tailoring compared to the city's shoemaking industry. By
comparison, the evidence suggeststhat the influence of fashion and of London practices
were far more important to tailors than shoemakers.
35
London and the Role of Fashion

The marketing of London connectionsor fashion was found in twenty of the forty-three
London's
Styles
half
just
the
standing as the
attributes
of
sample.
adverts,representing
in
large
`the
tailoring
to
a
consumers
population
of
a
epicentre of
concentrationof such
in
for
'intense
the
that
these
specialization
allowed
relatively small area', and argues
"
is
importance
London
The
for
differentiation'.
of
manufacturing processand
product
illustrated by the manner in which tailors were apt to boast of any connection with the
he
LONDON
`From
for
instance,
in
When
1769,
James
Smith
that
was
advertised
capital.
he
had
learned
doubt
intended
that
PARIS',
this
to
customers
and
reassurepotential
was no
",
for
in
Europe.
This
important
the
tone
his trade in two of the most
tailoring
set
centresof
the whole period; tailors sought to either advertiseprevious experienceof the London trade
itself or to market the fact that they were copying the best London practice. In March 1769,
for example, Robert Norton reported that he had `just returned from LONDON with the
latest Improvements'. Likewise John Thomas also testified to the superiority of London
his
he
informed
in
1771
November
that
customers
prospective
craftsmanship
when
finished work will be ìn as neat a Manner as in London'. ' 12Such claims were no doubt
intended to reassurehigher-classcustomersthat good quality tailoring could be obtained in
Bristol as well as London. They also indicate that somewell-heeled residentsof Bristol
may have sent to London for items to be made, and so provided direct competition to the
Bristol tradesmen.Perhapsrespondingto such customer preferences,Caseassuredhis
prospective clients in October 1779 that the clothes he produced were made 'with as good
direct
link
in
London
Air
to
tailors
with the
stress
a
quick
as
were
an
and as well made up',
113
ìn
In
May
1773,
William
Merryman
to
as
provide
work
capital.
not only promised
'
14
he
'From
LONDON'.
Manner
but
he
in
complete a
as London',
even advertised that was
In March 1780, Henry Richards remarked that he had practised the trade in `London for
three Years past'. George Hamilton also advertised in August 1783 that he was `from
London'. ' 15In June 1788John Biss junior advertisedthat his recent time had been well
spent, as he informed potential customersthat he had èmbracedthe opportunity of
improvement in LONDON for two years past'. ' 6 William Budd also used his past
experiencein order to attract custom. In June 1790, an advertisementmentioned that he
had been a foreman in `severalof the most eminent Shops in London' and could therefore
provide èntire Satisfaction to his kind Employers' as `neither Workmanship or Materials
7
1
be
(sic)'.
These kinds of insertions suggestthat the Bristol market for
to
are
excell'd
clothes was vibrant in this period, and the city's large population at this time must
undoubtedly provided demand for the city's tailors just as it had for its shoemakers.After
36
all, tailors would not have relocated to Bristol from London, nor Bristol-based tailors
travelled to London to increasetheir aptitude, unlessthere was a keen market for clothes of
a high quality in Bristol.
The extent to which Bristol's tailors sought to market their goods and servicesin terms of
fashion needsto be set w414the broader context of changein the clothing trade in this
period. The eighteenth century witnesseda growth in fashion consciousnessamong wide
sectionsof the populace for the first time. Braudel assertsthat, before the early modern
'
18
period, `the general rule was changelessness'in the appearanceof clothes. The extent to
which accessto fashionable clothing was available to all sectionsof society is a
controversial one. McKendrick arguesthat, by 1772, the `lower orders' of London were as
èqually immersed in their fashionablevices' as their social superiors, a trend which soon
spreadto domestic servants,ìndustrial workers' and àgricultural workers' in that order.
This interpretation has however not gone unchallengedby other historians.' 19Fine and
Leopold, for instance, arguethat the earningsof domestic servantsand other membersof
the labouring population renderedthem unable to purchasequality clothes in the style of
the middle-classes,with the result that these social groups were often reliant on clothes
being handeddown. 120Indeed the poor in general were more reliant on the trade in secondhand clothing. This trade was a `common feature of English life' and one which allowed
those earning between fifteen and fifty pounds a year to `dressin clothes that bespokea
higher station'. 121The fact that the market for tailors' wares was more restricted than that
of the shoemaker,explains why the adverts of Bristol's tailors were more likely to stress
the bespoke and quality nature of their service. Given their concentration at this end of the
market, one would expect Bristol's tailors to stressthe fashionable nature of their produce.
Their emphasisupon fashion in their adverts as Lemire outlines was part of the slow
transmission of fashions to the provinces in the early eighteenth century, a processwhich
was itself acceleratedby the growth of provincial newspaperswhose àdvertisements
brought news of goods'. 122
For all thesereasons,then,it is perhapsnot surprisingthat the term 'fashion' enteredthe

marketing idiom of tailors much earlier than among shoemakers.As early as the first years
of the 1770s,for example, both John Thomas and Isaac Amos were claiming to provide
clothes in `the most fashionable Manner', while Edward Evans statedhe provided clothes
in `the most compleat and fashionable Manner (sic)'. 123Samuel Willy likewise alluded to
fashion when he mentioned that the gentlemen's clothes he made were made àfter the
newest taste', a claim not made for his ready-madegoods.124In the 1780s,while James
37
Davis made clothes 'in the newest Fashion', GeorgeHamilton provided them in `the
125
fashions
Cole
fashionable
George
Manner.
that
were
made
clear
newest and most
he
in
had
`laid
He
for
that
the
a
advertised
seasonaland also marketed
ready-mademarket.
compleat and fashionableAssortment (sic)' of items for the `Spring, Summer,and Autumn
Trade'. 126In the 1790s,George Withy and Son advertisedthat goods in their warehouse
were `well adaptedto the present Season',while Tripp hoped his goods would be
àpprovedto the prevailing taste'.127The links between fashion and London were
undeniable; thus, Robert Norton advertisedthat the stays he sold were provided in 'every
Variation of Fashion as early as in London. 128In 1799, Biss and Norton were able to
report that they had `lately spent sometime in London for the purpose of gaining a
thorough knowledge of the newest Fashion in the Make of Gentlemen's Clothes and
Ladies' Riding-Habits (sic)'. 129When Tripp boastedthat his businesscould not be
èxcelled in point of elegance,fashion &c' he gave an insight into the clientele that this
had
first
from
`the
he
lay
in
For
his
`proof'
the
the
received
attracted.
of
claim
custom
Nobility and Gentlemen's Families'; a claim which illustrates the importance of the custom
130
Bristol's
tailors. However, the above insertions did not elaborateon
of the well-heeled to
exactly what constituted fashionable clothing, or why they were fashionable. There are two
main reasonsfor this. Firstly, clothing was a `consumerdurable' in this period and it was
`trimmings' such as buckles, ribbons, and lace that `facilitated the necessarydifferentiation
in fashion' rather than the clothes themselves.131This was also the casein eighteenthcentury France, as `taffetas, muslins and bobbin lace' were fashionable in the summer with
`satin, velvet and needle lace' worn in the winter. 132The fact that it was the
embellishmentsto clothing that mattered most with regard to fashionable status,rather than
any inherent skill in the tailoring process,accountsfor the lack of further elaboration.
Secondly, the vague nature of referencesto fashion in the Bristol adverts tends to reinforce
McKendrick's point that `most of the commercial benefit of fashion was felt to accrueto
London' during the eighteenthcentury, whereasthe provinces took longer `to adopt the
fashions of London'. 133Though Bristol may have been the most important provincial city,
and therefore market, for much of the eighteenth century its tailors could therefore not be
expected,despite their repeatedclaims in their adverts, to possessthe knowledge and
expertise of their counterpartsin the capital.
Conclusion
It is clear that ready-madeproduction was of most importance to the shoemakingtrade,
while bespokeproduction was the primary raision d'etre of tailoring. Such factors can
explain why export-led demandand the demandsof the war years stimulate the
38
shoemakingtrade to a much greater extent than the tailoring trade. However, during the
1790s,the advertising spacetaken by both tradeswas neverthelessincreasingly dominated
by ready-madegoods, no doubt due both to the wartime demandsof the military and navy
and to growing markets both locally and nationally. While both tradeswere keen to
emulatethe standardsof London, the marketing of fashionable items, not surprisingly, was
far more prevalent in the tailoring trade than shoemaking.With thesemain factors
influencing production and marketing in mind, it is possible now to move on to consider
their impact upon the organisation of production, both in terms of the division of labour in
each trade and the structure of the workforce in eachtrade.
39
ENDNOTES
' Sketchley'sBristol Directory 1775 (Bristol, 1775; 1971reprint); Mathews's Bristol guide and directory
(Bristol, 1794).
2 Bristol Journal (hereafter B.J), 19/1/1771.
3 J. Swann, Shoemaking(Princes Risborough, Bucks., 1986), p. 5.
4 Ibid., p. 9.
SJ. R. Farr, Artisans in Europe, 1300-1914 (Cambridge, 2000), p. 56.
6Bristol Gazette(hereafter Bgaz), 5/3/1772.
7 BJ, 26/3/1774.
8Felix Farley's Bristol Journal (hereafterFFBJ), 20/4/1776.
9 FFBJ 19/1/1782.
10FFBJ 24/5/1783.
" FFBJ 22/6/1793.
12Sarah Farley's Bristol Journal (hereafter SFBJ), 22/2/1794.
13Bgaz 1/8/1799,5/9/1799.
14M. Falkus, Britain Transformed:An Economic and Social History, 1700-1914 (Ormskirk, Lancs., 1987), p.
16.
15E. Hobsbawm and J. Scott, 'Political Shoemakers',Past and Present, 89,1980, p. 103.
16R. Campbell, The London Tradesman(London, 1747; 1969Reprint), p. 219.; T. Mortimer, A General
Commercial Dictionary (London, 1819), p. 913.
17BJ, 11/5/1776.
's W. Minchinton, 'The Port of Bristol in the Eighteenth Century' in P. McGrath (ed.), Bristol in the 18'4
Century (Bristol, 1972), p. 128.; P. T. Marcy, 'Eighteenth Century views of Bristol and Bristolians' in P.
McGrath (ed.), Bristol in the 18'hCentury (Bristol, 1972),p. 18. According to Marcy Bristol attainedthis
lofty position with a figure of 20,000 in 1700 and relinquished it in 1801 with a population of 64,000.
19E. Baigent, 'Economy and society in eighteenth-centuryEnglish towns: Bristol in the 1770s' in D.
Denecke and G. Shaw (eds), Urban Historical Geography: RecentProgress in Britain and Germany
(Cambridge, 1988), p. 110.; K. Morgan, 'The Economic Development of Bristol, 1700-1850', in M. Dresser
49.
1996),
(Tiverton,
Bristol
Modern
(eds),
The
Making
P.
Ollerenshaw,
p.
of
and
20J. F. Rees, TheArt and Mystery of a Cordwainer; or An Essayon the Principles and Practice of Boot and
Shoe-Making (London, 1813), Preface,p. x.
21Mortimer, A General Commercial Dictionary, p. 913.
22I. J. Prothero, Artisans and Politics in Early Nineteenth-CenturyLondon: John Gast and his Times(1979,
Folkestone), p. 22; J. Hoppit, Risk and Failure in English Business, 1700-1800 (Cambridge, 1987), pp. 149150.
23K. Morgan, Bristol and the Atlantic Trade in the Eighteenth Century (Cambridge, 1993), p. 89,96-97,103.
While the North American and West Indies trade had only consumed 11% of Bristol exports in 1700,this
increasedto 38% in 1772/73, and 57% in 1797/98.
24Morgan, Bristol and the Atlantic Trade, p. 95.; G. Riello, 'From consumption towards production: the case
Society
Economic
History
Session,
Researchers
in
England',
New
boot
trade
the
of
and shoe
pre-industrial
ConferenceProgramme,2001, p. 92.
25M. Sonenscher,
FrenchTrades
Workand Wages:NaturalLaw, Politics,and theEighteenth-Century
(Cambridge,1989),p. 114,277.
261loppit, Risk and Failure, p. 122.

27Morgan, Bristol and the Atlantic Trade, p. 25,29.
28Morgan, Atlantic trade, p. 93,22. The Caribbeanas a whole claimed between 33% and 50% of Bristol's
exports in the late eighteenth century.
29Farr, Artisans, p. 56.
30B Lemire, Dress, Culture and Commerce: The English Clothing Trade before the Factory, 1660-1800
(London, 1997), p. 11.
31Riello, 'From consumption towards production', p. 92.
32FFBJ 20/1/1776.
33SFBJ 23/11/1793,30/11/1793; FFBJ 30/11/1793. This firm was used to large contractsas St. Peter's
Hospital, a Bristol workhouse, had purchasedover one hundred pairs of shoesfrom them in 1787. SeeFFBJ
17/3/1787.Bristol was not unique in this endeavouras over three thousand shoeswere sent from Worcester,
while in nearby Bath a `party of Ladies' undertook a subscription to supply each member of the 900-strong
SomersetMilitia with a pair of shoes.SeeBgaz 9/1/1794,27/3/1794; FFBJ 1/2/1794; Bristol Mercury
(hereafter Bmerc), 3/2/1794.
34FF13J9/9/1775.
"Bonner and Middleton's Bristol Journal (hereafter BMBJ) 14/6/1777; Bgaz 12/6/1777. The strike itself is
dealt with fully in Chapter 5.
36FFBJ 12/10/1776,30/11/1776;
Bgaz24/4/1777;BMBJ 20/9/1777.
" Onefirm reportedthat they
required`SomeHundreds'of journeymen,presumablyto meetordersandthe
high demand.SeeBi 11/5/1776.The sameemployeragaincalledfor 'someHundreds'of shoemakers
a year
40
later. SeeFFBJ 19/7/1777.The London news reported that 'three hundred JourneymenShoemakers'had
in
America'
in
'furnish
the
to
the
to
with shoes,suggestingthat
army
capital
on
contracts
work
arrived
London was the major beneficiary of war-time demand.SeeBgaz 6/6/1776.
38SFBJ26/4/1794.
39Bath Chronicle5/11/1792.
40FFBJ8/7/1769.
41Bgaz 7/4/1796,1/9/1796.
42SFBJ 21/11/1778.
43FFBJ 7/10/1780,19/10/1780.
44FFBJ 29/9/1792.
45SFBJ 14/7/1787.
46FFBJ 28/2/1795; Bgaz 24/3/1796.
47Bmerc 6/7/1795,22/2/1796.
48J. Rule, The Experience of Labour in Eighteenth-CenturyIndustry (London, 1981), pp. 33-34.
49Riello, 'From consumption towards production', p. 93.
50FFBJ 28/2/1795.
s' SFBJ 22/2/1794; Bgaz 7/4/1796,1/9/1796. These exampleswere representativeof the majority of readymade adverts.
52Mortimer, A General Commercial Dictionary, p. 913; Rule, Experience of Labour, p. 28.
s' SFBJ 14/7/1787.
54J. Latimer, Annals of Bristol in the Eighteenth Century (Bristol, 1893; 1970 reprint), p. 356. While in the
1760straders were still forced to pay heavy penaltiesto become freemen, a qualification for trading within
issue.
1792
draconian
By
became
less
in
decades
Corporation
this
Bristol,
the
one
on
the
central
ensuing
being
free
kinds
trades'
'all
their
to
that,
without
prosecuted
exercise
of personsare
contemporary recorded
or fined by the Corporation.
55SFBJ 21/6/1788.
56SFBJ 17/10/1789;Bmerc 1/3/1790.
57Bgaz 7/4/1796,1/9/1796.
58FFBJ 6/7/1799.
59SFBJ 1/1/1791.
60Bmerc 6/7/1795.
61Bmerc 22/2/1796.
62Bgaz 24/3/1796.
63Bgaz 7/4/1796,19/5/1796.
64FFBJ 6/7/1799.
65Swann, Shoemaking,pp. 8-9.
66D. Alexander, Retailing in England during the Industrial Revolution (London, 1970), p. 136.
67Sketchley'sBristol Directory 1775; Mathews's Bristol guide and directory (for 1794).
68N. McKendrick, J. Brewer, J. H. Plumb, The Birth of a ConsumerSociety: The Commercialization of
Eighteenth-Century England (London, 1982),pp. 84-85.
69Ibid., p. 85.
70BJ 11/3/1769.
71Bgaz 14/11/1771; BJ 1/5/1773.
72FFBJ 10/2/1776.
73BJ 23/9/1775.
74FFBJ 10/10/1789.
75FFBJ 1/10/1796.
76BJ 11/2/1769.
" BJ 11/2/1769.The above and following
calculations are basedon a pound consisting of twenty shillings,
and of a shilling consisting of twelve pence. The percentagerepresentedby labour costs varied, especially on
cheaperproducts, as the nine shilling charge for 'the making only' of a 'Ladies JeanDress' represented
around 25% of the normal retail figure of two pounds and fifteen shillings. The same fee charged for 'the
making only' of a 'Livery Coat, Waistcoat & Shag Breeches' representedaround 13% of the normal asking
?rice of three pounds and eight shillings.
8BJ 11/2/1769.
79BJ 4/8/1770.
80BJ 4/8/1770.
81FFBJ 7/1/1769. Smith
also made a 'Plain Livery Cloth Coat and Shag Breeches' for three pounds and five
shillings, though the cost of 'making only' was just seven and a half shillings, representingjust 11.5% of the
original cost.
82FFBJ 7/5/1774.
83FFBJ 14/5/1774.
84FFBJ 30/10/1779.
85FFBJ 2/4/1796.
41
'6B. Fine and E. Leopold, The World of Consumption(London, 1993),pp. 130-131.

87J. Styles, 'Product Innovation in Early Modern London', Past and Present,No. 168,2000, p. 162.
88S. Johnson,A Dictionary of the English Language: Two Volumes(London, 1755; 1983 reprint). Seealso
Table Two on Page 14.
89Bgaz 2/6/1774.
90SFBJ 12/5/1787.
91Styles, 'Product Innovation', p. 162.
92Ibid., p. 164.
93SFBJ 20/11/1790.
94Bmerc 27/9/1790.
95Bgaz 5/9/1793.
96B. Lemire, 'Consumerism in Preindustrial and Early Industrial England: The Trade in Secondhand
Clothes', Journal of British Studies,Vol. 27, January 1988,p. 5.
97FFBJ 22/7/1797. Similarly John Mathews of Melksham describedhimself as an 'Army Taylor' when he
advertised for twenty journeymen in Bath. SeeBath Chronicle, 13/12/1792.
98Sonenscher,Work and Wages,p. 114.
99FFBJ 22/11/1800.
100Bgaz 18/4/1799.
101Bgaz 18/4/1799.
102Hoppit, Risk and Failure, p. 123.
103Farr, Artisans, p. 56.
104Lemire, Dress, Culture and Commerce,p. 11.
105B. Lemire, Fashion's Favourite: The Cotton Trade and the Consumerin Britain, 1660-1800 (Oxford,
1991), pp. 184-185. Since the 'slops' (wide-kneed breeches)worn by sailors were 'made in the style of
working-men's clothing' they became'extensively used by different segmentsof the population'. To such an
extent that the term 'slop' metamorphosedfrom meaning 'sailors' loose trousers' to meaning 'ready-made,
cheap or inferior garments'.
106Bgaz 9/2/1775.
107Bgaz 7/2/1788.
108Ibid.
'09Sketchley'sBristol Directory 1775; Mathews's Bristol
guide and directory (for 1794).
110Styles, 'Product Innovation', pp. 129-130.
"' FFBJ7/1/1769.
12 BJ 11/3/1769,Bgaz 14/11/1771.
113FFBJ 30/10/1779.
14 BJ 1/5/1773.
115Bgaz 30/3/1780, FFBJ 16/8/1783.
116FFBJ 7/6/1788.
117
SFBJ26/6/1790.
"8 F. Braudel, Capitalism

and Material Life, 1400-1800 (Glasgow, 1973), p. 231.
19 McKendrick et al, ConsumerSociety, 53,60.
p.
120Fine and Leopold, World Consumption, 125.
of
p.
12'Lemire, 'SecondhandClothes', 1,4.
p.
'22Lemire, Fashion's Favourite,
pp. 166-168; McKendrick et al, ConsumerSociety, p. 41,47. McKendrick
saw the doll as bringing about a blurring of class divisions in dress and enabling the 'conspicuous lead of the
fashion leadersto be quickly copied by the rest of society', p. 43.
123Bgaz 14/11/1771,3/3/1774; FFBJ 14/5/1774.
124Bgaz 9/2/1775.
125FFBJ 21/4/1781,16/8/1783.
126SFBJ 12/5/1787.
127SFBJ 20/11/1790; B. Gaz 5/9/1793.
128Bgaz 4/3/1773.
129Bgaz 18/4/1799.
130FFBJ 22/11/1800.
13'Fine and Leopold, World Consumption, 131. Lemire has
of
p.
also commented that many 'ready-made
clothes' were 'neither fashionable nor noteworthy', reinforcing the focus of fashion on adornmentsand
decoration. SeeLemire, Dress, Culture and Commerce,p. 43.
132M. Delpierre, Dress in France in
the Eighteenth Century (London, 1997), p. 71.
133McKendrick et al, ConsumerSociety, 50. However by 1800 McKendrick does
p.
note that the 'time-lag
between London and the provinces was being measuredin weeks and months rather than in decades'.See
p.
96.
42
CHAPTER TWO: THE DIVISION OF LABOUR, GENDER AND

MOBILITY IN THE BRISTOL SHOEMAKING AND TAILORING
TRADES, 1770-1800
This chapterprovides a detailed analysis of the way in which the labour force was
organisedin Bristol's shoemakingand tailoring trades in the late eighteenthcentury.
Among other things, this issueoffers insights into the role of gender in the organisation of
the labour force, both in terms of the division of the workforce between those who made
female and male items, and actual genderdivides within the workforce itself. The majority
of the evidence deployed here arisesfrom insertions in the Bristol newspaperpress,and
from trade dictionaries. By utilising Bristol poll books for elections in this period, the
chapter also examinesthe extent of labour mobility in the Bristol shoemakingand tailoring
trades.
Making Shoes and the Division of Labour

The division of labour involved in producing a pair of shoesin eighteenth-centuryEngland
was manifold, encompassingseveral different trades.First, the tanner preparedthe hide by
placing it in a `Pit of Lime' in order to remove the hair. According to Campbell, the writer
of a distinguished trade dictionary published in 1747, the hide was then placed into water
along with a quantity of oak bark until the `Bark had penetrated' through to the hide, when
it was then dried and sent to the leather-dresser,or currier. ' The currier then removed àll
the enevenrough Inside' and treated the leather with oils, though leathersdestined for use
2
less
be
leathers.
The shoemaker
treatment than those to used as upper
as soles required
was further supplied with `Wooden-Heelsfor Men and Women's Shoes' by a last-maker,
whose lasts were formed from à single piece of wood' designedto ìmitate the foot'.
Shoeswere therefore largely made from pre-made sections,This was illustrated in July
1789when Sevier and Hicks, a Bristol shoemakingfirm, had `six dozen soles for women's
shoes' stolen from their premises. David Alexander notes that by the early nineteenth
century the shoemakerhad become ìncreasingly an assemblerof ready-madecomponents'
as he bought `pre-cut soles, tops and tips from leather cutters and footwear
5
manufacturers'.
Once the leather was fit for the shoemakerthe first processinvolved
cutting out the leather,
a task often performed by the masterhimself. According to an anonymous trade dictionary
published in 1806, it was the master who `measureshis customers' and then `cuts out the
leather for his work-people to put together', a task delegatedto foremen
where the
shoemakercarried on a sizeablebusiness.6 Having cut the leather the master passedit on to
43
thejourneyman,whojoined `theupperleatherto the soleof a shoe'in the following

durable
form
`strong
in
immersed
in
Using
to
thread
substance',
a
and
order
manner.
a
wax
7
by
'awl
journeyman
leather
holes
'.
`sewsthe
the
together' through
made an
In late eighteenth-centuryBristol those skilled in cutting leather were an important

indicate
in
Insertions
Bristol
that men who were
the
component of
newspapers
workforce.
able to both cut leather and supervisethe businesswere valued men of the trade. In May
1783, for example, T. Millard advertisedfor a `Clicker (sic)' who was required to be `well
8
for
often throughout the period.
experiencedin the Art of cutting', a skill that was called
In August 1769, Isaac Bence advertised for a `CLICKER' who was `capableof
undertaking every Part of the Shoe-makingBranch', suggestingthat cutters required
knowledge of the entire shoemakingbusiness,while a Bath concern required a `CLICKER
9
knowledge
`clicker'
(sic)'.
insertion
in
Character
An
1775
of
a
with
with a good
required
be
`write
its
but
ìn
Branches',
to
the
to
a
applicant
able
shoemaking
various
also required
tolerable Hand'. 10Indeed, the role of a `clicker' was synonymouswith that of the foreman,
with the result that adverts using both terms specified skill, experience,and responsibility.
Of four adverts from the 1770s,two of which called for a `Foreman', and two for a
`clicker', all required a man to work ìn a reputable Shoe-maker's Shop in this City',
I
I
proving that applicants were required actually in the shop where goods were sold. The
role of a `Cutter' was also synonymouswith that of the `foreman' and `clicker'. John
Pedden,for example, was a `Gentlemen's Cutter' to William Tilladams and when the pair
fell out in 1789 the latter advised his customersnot to trust Pedden `with orders on my
12
account'. It appears,therefore, that, at least in some cases,a 'Cutter' was entrustedwith
taking customer orders, a role associatedwith that of the foreman. Evidence of the
indispensablerole of foremen, or even skilled journeymen, can be seenon the deathsof
masterswhen such employeesappearto have provided much-neededstability to the
business.In 1773, for example, a recently widowed woman wrote to a customer advising
that her husband's death meant `nothing at all' since òur journeyman will keep doing for
me the sameas he did before', and she explained that her late husbandhad been ill for
13
some time. Likewise in 1799 Elizabeth Pewters,the widow of JosephPewters,advised
her Bristol customersthat the businesswould be continued despite the death of her
husband `with proper Assistants' to supervisethe business.'4
Journeymen,aswe haveseen,weregenerallyemployedto sewthe compositeelementsof

the shoetogether.A furtherdivision of the workforcewasthe split betweenthosewho
madewomen'sandthosewho mademen's footwear.Tradedictionariesfor the period
44
between the mid-eighteenth and early nineteenthcenturiesconcurred that `journeymenin

this trade' were distinguishedbetween `women's shoe-makers'and those producing `shoes
'5
in
for
`two
distinct
Branches'
boots
for
According
Campbell
the
to
the
reason
and
men'.
the trade was that `few are good at both', becauseit was 'much more ingenious to make a
Woman's Shoethan a Man's' since female footwear required `neater Seams' and used
`much finer materials' such as silk and damask.16Work on women's shoestherefore seems
to have required greaterskill, and may have warranted greater remuneration. According to
Campbell, althoughjourneymen were generally poorly paid this was especially the caseìn
'7
bad.
The
in
Men's
Way',
inferring
the
that pay the women's sector was not quite so
French example appearsto support this contention; Marseille shoemakers,for example,
18
were paid more for making women's shoesthan men's. This argument is, however,
counteredto some extent by the evidenceof John Rees,a `masterboot and shoemakerat
Bristol' when he published his treatise on the trade in 1813.19Reesinformed his readers
that knowledge of `making a man's shoe' is required for all `skilful workmen' even if they
20
is
be
Rees
ìt
'confined
Therefore,
to
to
stated,
generally
wish
women's shoesonly'.
known in the trade', that women's men who had been trained at men's work were of a
higher standard`than that of mere women's men'.21However, Rees' commentsmay have
reflected changesthat had occurred during the Napoleonic War. JamesLackington's
memoirs indicate that women's work carried the greatestlevel of prestige in Bristol
shoemakingduring the 1770s.Lackington had been raised in Taunton and had worked in
the Bristol shoemakingtrade in the early 1770s,before moving to London and making his
name as'a distinguished bookseller, and then publishing his memoirs in 1792. Recalling his
days in Bristol in the early 1770s,Lackington mentions that his roommate, Jones,was a
fellow shoemakerwho could `get more money than I could' since he worked on women's
22
shoes. In addition, during a time spent in Kingsbridge in Devon, Lackington took to
making women's footwear for the first time since no women's shoemakerswere based
there. Despite his lack of experience,Lackington's venture soon earnedhim the reputation
23
being
'best
in
the
of
workman the town'.
The primary distinction of skill between men's and women's work was linked to the use of
different materials. This distinction was similar to the way in which the' measureof skill'
in eighteenth-centuryFrance was largely connectedwith `materials' and the dexterity that
24
had
In July 1769, for example, a request for a `Number of
them.
workers
with
Journeymen' stipulated that the employer required only those `who can work
on Women's
Stuff Shoes(sic)'. 25The clear implication here is that not all journeymen
shoemakerswere
acquaintedwith producing the above item, otherwise the advert need not have been so
45
specific. It suggeststhat, as the trade dictionaries indeed highlighted, women's shoeswere

26
finer
form
made of
materials such as 'stuff, a
of woollen textile. The specific use of
`stuff for women's shoesis explicit in the evidence.Thus, in 1783 T. Millard mentioned
that he possesseda `large Quantity of Womens STUFF SHOES and PUMPS (sic)', while
Tilladams statedin 1788that he had acquired `Stuffs for Ladies SHOES and
SANDALLS', and in 1777Hicks, Sevier, and Lane advertised àll Sorts of Womens SILK
27
STUFF
SHOES'.
This type of evidencereinforces the fact that items made from
and
thesematerials were consideredto be exclusively feminine. In 1771, for example, a Bath
warehouserequired journeymen for `Silk and Stuff Work', materials used for women's
shoes,while the `Shoe-Warehouse'basedin Corn Street, Bristol, differentiated between
28
for
`Stuff
(sic)'.
Heel
Men'
`Men's
Men
their need
and
Different materials, therefore, clearly called for different skills. Lackington made it clear
which work he preferred. On returning to Bristol from his sojourn in Devon, Lackington
statedthat àfter having worked on stuff-work in the country' he `could not bear the idea of
29
leather
branch'
in
he
Stuff
Bristol
returning to the
so àttemptedand obtained a seat of
While the gender-orientedproduction of the trade was often outlined by expertise in
different materials, women neverthelessdid also use leather footwear. This explains why
StephenBagg required a mixture of men capableof making men's and boy's boots, as well
3
`Women's
Girls
Leather
Shoes'.
John Morgan required journeymen in the
as
and
strong
`Women's Leather and Stuff Branch' suggestingthat both stuff and leather were used for
female footwear.31Likewise, in January 1793 Thomas Brown was charged with stealing
`twenty-two pairs of Men's leather Shoesand sevenpair of Women's leather Shoes', at the
Bristol Quarter Sessions.32Such evidenceprobably reflects the fact that poorer women
required sturdy leather footwear, comparedto the finer materials worn by higher-class
women.
Evidence of whetherjourneymen were always distinctly divided between those that made
women's and those that made men's footwear is ambiguous. There is, for example, some
evidence that journeymen may have learned the skills of both sectors.When John Huish
advertised a reward in 1772 for the apprehensionof John Broom, a journeyman who had
stolen goods from him, he mentioned that the latter ùsually worked on Womens StuffWork' but could `turn his Hand to either Branch'. 33According to Sonenscher,in
Marseilles`journeymenshoemakers.....
eighteenth-century
objectedto makingmen's shoes
becausethey wereinvariablypaid at lower ratesthanwomen's
34
shoes'. This pointstoward
a workforceskilled in both sectors,for onecanonly objectto makingmen's shoesif oneis
46
Evidence
dual
for
of
skills
remuneration.
also capableof making women's shoes greater
among English shoemakersis, however, generally less decisive. Lackington is a casein
point. His metamorphosisinto a woman's shoemakerwas largely due to the happy accident
his
had
Ì
in
Yet,
that,
statement
not
of arriving a place where no such expertiseexisted.
been brought up to stuff-work, nor had ever entirely made one stuff or silk shoebefore'
3S
both
sectorson starting the trade.
suggeststhat shoemakerswere not normally taught
Lackington's claim that he would not have acted as à stuff-man had there been any such
in
in
kept
likewise
trade
the
to one
the
that
normally
workmen
suggests
workers
place',
36
for
feasible
individual
it
Overall,
the
then,
sector or
other.
while was perfectly
journeymen, such as John Broom or JamesLackington, to gain knowledge of both sectors
it would appearthat journeymen were largely divided into one sector or another.The
clearest evidence for this arisesfrom the manner in which journeymen organised
themselvesduring strike activity. In 1777, for example, Bristol's journeymen shoemakers
felt it necessaryduring a strike to inform the public that a reported difference between `the
Men's and Women's Men' had not occurred.37This evidenceclearly indicates that those
who worked on men's shoeswere differentiated from those that worked on women's
shoes.During the 1792 strike, the ladies' shoemakersadvertised their grievances
separatelyfrom those of the men's shoemakers,again reflecting a clear difference relating
38
to separategroups of workers.
Outworking
Historical studies indicate that shoemakingwas largely basedon outwork during this
period. Prothero's study of early nineteenth-centuryLondon artisans, for example,
included shoemakingamong the trades organisedalong domestic lines, and he arguesthat
journeymen either worked at home or hired a separateroom for working purposes,
39
`clubbing
Rule,
According
together'
to
the
trade.
sometimes
of
with others
out-working
was linked to issuesof autonomy. Artisans in this period, he argues,expected `no
interference in the way in which they did their work'. Prothero supports this, assertingthat
0
forced
if
shoemakerswould strike
to work on the employers' premises. Swann's study of
the trade also concludes that `most shoeswere made by outworkers working at home' in
the eighteenthcentury.41Historians have regardedembezzlementas evidence of
outworking. In 1722, for example, the London master shoemakerspetitioned the House of
Commons for action to be taken againstjourneymen who embezzled and pawned
materials. While the mastersstatedthat they `deliver to and intrust (sic)' with 'Leather and
other Materials for making up of Boots, Shoes,Slippers' and so forth, the men were said to
'frequently pawn, sell, detain, and exchange' thesegoods.42Embezzling
on such a scale
47
UNIVERSITY
OFBRISTOL
in
based
had
been
have
been
the
trade
workshops, closely supervised
possible
would not
by a masteror foreman. Thus, Styles, for example, claims that there is `virtual unanimity'
for
historians
disadvantage
the employer' was the
`the
that
of
putting-out
principal
among
`problem of embezzlementby workers'. 43
The suggestionthat embezzlementprovides evidenceof outworking is reinforced by
Bristol sources.In 1769, for example,John Banfield was working as a journeyman for
Thomas PearceAllison when he `was committed' to the local `Bridewell' for 'exchanging
the Leather of his Master' by making shoestherefrom and selling them and substituting
4
Leather'
in
`bad
its place. When the newspaperreport carrying this news mentioned that
`Master Shoemakerswere advised to examine `their Goods when brought home', it
journeyman
that
the
between
distinction
the
the
of
and
of
of
work
a
place
clear
portrayed
45
in
Likewise,
this
the
misdemeanour.
prevalenceof
master, as well as possibly explaining
1780 a `JourneymanShoe-maker' was committed in Bristol for two weeks and whipped
46
for pawning shoesthat were `given him to be made up' by his master. According to
Styles, the pawning of goodswas, like embezzlement,a type of fraud which `characterised
47
the putting-out system'. The opportunities that outwork allowed for theft was again
by
Lock.
Bence
in
launched
Bristol
two
and
pawnbrokers
a
witnessed
prosecution
against
The former admitted taking `Women's Stuff Shoes' that had been èntrustedto the Care of
8
William
Horwood,
in
`to
Journeymen'
for
St
Jacob
Philip
them
a
make
up'.
several
and
journeyman shoemaker,was also committed for `selling leather' belonging to Bence and
Lock. 9 Opportunities for theft among outworkers were still rife in the 1790swhen a
`journeymen cordwainer' called John Prince Butler was convicted of èmbezzling leather
intrusted to him to make into shoes(sic)'. 5John Rees,the Bristol shoemaker,also touched
his
dangers
by
be
the
target
the
the
to
of
clear
upon
of outworking
young novice,
avoided
treatise. Reesadvisedjourneymen to be àttentive to the orders you have received from the
shop you work for', and advised them to avoid embezzlement,since by using the materials
`he receives from the shop' the young beginner can avoid a `shameful violation of the
5'
honesty'.
This reinforces the picture that Bristol's shoemakerswere, in the
principles of
words of the anonymousauthor of Crispin Anecdotes,among those `fire-side artizans (sic)'
52
in
`sit
house
day
long',
hearths'.
home
the
'work
who
all the
and
at
on their own
Historianshavealsofoundthat out-workoffers a meanswith which to evaluatethe

gendereddivision of labourwithin the trade.Thus,Anna Clark arguesthat,because
hadbeenassistedby the labourof their wives from the mid-eighteenth
shoemakers
century,that the `tradehad fallen into patternsof family labor long beforeothershad. 53
48
Likewise Louise Tilly and Joan Scott note that those `wives of skilled craftsmenwho
for
`waxed
included
husbands
those
home'
their
who
shoes
and assisted
worked at
by
journeymen
in
trade
And,
Prothero
the
aided
that
were
shoemaking
notes
shoemakers'.
54
labour.
Eighteenth-centuryobserversof the trade support thesearguments.
their wives'
Campbell noted that shoemakersèmploy Women to bind their Shoes' and sew them when
55
dictionary
in
1806,
Similarly,
trade
Damask,
Callimanco'.
`Silk,
a
they are made of
or
`sew
kinds'
to
the
bind
`women
quarters
to
and
also
that
all
of
shoes
employed
noted
are
56
from
both
Indeed
the
evidence
together of those that are made of silk, satin, and stuffs'.
Campbell and from the 1806 dictionary implies that women were involved in the
itself.
footwear
of
women's
production
The involvement of women in the trade and the ways in which outworking facilitated both
by
Lackington's
illustrated
is
further
division
labour
domestic
of
and a gendered
a
1770s,
during
in
home
Bristol
the
After
early
memoirs.
marrying and setting up
Lackington mentions that, to supplementtheir income, Nancy, his new wife, `was learning
57
her
to bind stuff-shoes' even though she `had never been much used to
needle'.
Furthermore, when the couple moved to London a few years later Lackington also
òbtained some stuff-shoes' for Nancy `to bind', suggestingthat this was a regular feature
58
in
for
labour
1792
Likewise
Dinham,
Taunton
Thomas
the
trade.
advertised
master,
a
of
`their
be
`will
the
wives may
that
of
since
and mentioned
more approved
married men
59
female
influx
has
the
have
Clark
labour',
that
Although
their
of
posited
also
great part of
labour into the shoemakingtrade becamemarked during the labour shortagesand high
60
in
itself.
development
Bristol
demandof the Napoleonic War, little evidence exists of this
However, a glimpse of the possible impact of the war on the Bristol trade can be seenin an
advert placed by Masters and Company for `TWENTY WOMEN HANDS (sic)' to work at
61
in
August
1799
This was a move that may have representedthe growing
their warehouse
.
use of cheap,female labour, in the ready-madefootwear market. While a marked change
may have occurred at the end of the century under the pressuresof wartime production, it
seemsclear that the usual manner in which women becameinvolved in shoemakingwas
undoubtedly in the role of a wife providing supplementarylabour. The other main
occurrencewas the running of shoemakingconcernsby the widows of master shoemakers,
with the assistanceof a skilled employee. This appears,however, to have been a relatively
rare occurrence.Thus, among the headsof shoemakingbusinesseslisted in Bristol's trade
directories, only three out of 125 master shoemakerswere female in 1775, while in 1794
62
female
65
(see
2:
It seemslikely, that thesewomen
1).
table
only one out of
masterswere
were widows. Thus, of 35 separatetradesmenlisted in table 1:163,only two were women,
49
businesses
had
both
Ann
Katherine
Tilladam
Smith
that
overseeing
and
and
were widows
belonged to their deceasedhusbands.64
Making Clothes and the Division of Labour

There were marked similarities betweenthe structure and division of labour in shoemaking
and in the tailoring trades.The role of the foreman in tailoring was also, for example,a key
one as he was the `bestWorkman in the Shop' who measuredthe customer when the
master was away, and `cuts and finishes all the Work' and then `carries it home to the
Customer'.65This was a role that was normally performed by a masterwhere the trade was
`not extensive'.66In common with shoemakingthere were `mere working taylors (sic)', the
journeymen, who sewedthe clothes even though few of them knew `how to cut out with
67
degree
any
of skill the clothes which they sew together'. As in shoemaking,cutting out
in
the
the
the
trade,
material
was regardedas
principal
most skilled aspectof
and wool was
68
which the tailor worked. The term `tailor' was derived from the French word taille,
69
`both
the cutting and stitching of cloth'.
meaning
The cutting and fitting of clothes was a key concern for eighteenth-centurytailors, as the
Bristol evidencevividly illustrates. Thus, in 1769,JamesSmith, a Bristol master,pledged
to overcome what he termed the Ìllconveniences so often practised among the Master
Taylors in Bristol (sic)' 70 These consistedin giving customersthe ùnnecessaryTrouble of
trying their Cloaths on before finished', and making enough alterations to leave the clothes
`half worn out', as Smith promised to make their `Cloaths fit without any Alteration' and
71
`more
Exactness
George Cole
Branch
(sic)'.
than any other Master of the
achieve
likewise reactedto 'Complaints of Goods ripping' that were `so often made' by promising
in 1787 `to make up every Article under his own Inspection'. 72In May 1796 an advert for
the Tailor's Complete Guide in the Bristol Mercury also alluded to thesekinds of
problems. The manual, published in London, professedto ìnstruct the rising Generation'
in the Àrt and Scienceof cutting out Cloth' and `fitting any person with the greatest
accuracy and precision'. It also aimed to àvoid the errors of the Trade in misfitting' and
73
by
in
`Society
Profession'.
It would appear
was written
a self-styled
of Adepts the
therefore that the problems of fitting were a national headache,rather than just Bristolspecific. Thus, Elizabeth Gaskell's novel North and South, published in 1854, describeda
life-long tailor who `had never been able to make a pair of trousers to fit for long he
as
as
had been in the trade', infers that such issueswere still current well into the
nineteenth
74
century.
50
Given that, in contrastto shoemaking,recruiting adverts for tailors were rarely placed in
is
fitting
foremen
information
to
the
the
cutting and
process
on
newspapers,
contribution of
invaluable. One advert in 1793 calling for a `FOREMAN in a genteel trade' who `had
habits
ladies'
(sic)',
in
the
reinforces the
and
experience
art of cutting gentlemen's clothes
in
in
that
to
that
the
the shoemaking
seen
argument
cutting was
real skill a similar manner
75
trade. Likewise Robert Tripp assuredhis customersin 1793 that they could be `fitted
have
least
by
Foreman
ingenious
the
whose
exertions
without
alteration a skilful, and
hitherto procured universal approbation'.76A few years later Tripp even boastedthat he
Cloaths
Gentlemen's
`Foreman
in
the
and Ladies'
employed a
whose skill
art of cutting
Habits is not to be excelled by any person in the kingdom. 77Similarly Isaac Vines advised
customersthat he had èngagedsome of the best Cutters and Makers', further enunciating
78
division
between
the
cutting and sewing. In common with shoemaking, foremen
possesseda wide knowledge of the trade, as was again evident when mastertailors passed
away. In 1771, for example,JaneBadger advertisedher intention to continue her late
husband's businesswith the Àssistanceof her Foremanwhose Knowledge in the Trade is
79
business
1775,
Martha
Walker
likewise
In
the
of Thomas
continued
unquestionable'.
Walker, her late brother-in-law, with the assistanceof an àble Foreman', while the
foreman to the late Robert Baker assistedhis widow, Grace, as he had `conductedthe
Trade during her Husband's long illness'. 80Similarly, when William Hurne died in 1777,
Richard Tombs who had been `many Years his Foreman' assistedwith the business.81
It would appearthat, unlike many shoemakers,journeymen tailors were workshop-based.

In 1777, for example, `two journeymen taylors (sic)' in Bath were engagedin a dispute
that resulted in a duel, the origins of which were traced to a `debateon the shop-board
(sic)', which reflects the fact that the journeymen concernedwere basedin a workshop.82
According to Rule, skilled tailors in London expectedto work òn the employers'
premises' in this period. Prothero also describesproduction in the early nineteenth-century
London tailoring trade as operating in `small workshops' run by masterswith a `small
83
journeymen.
In fact, there is little evidence from Bristol sourcesto either
number of
substantiateor contradict this picture. It seemslikely, however, that Bristol production
followed national patterns and was therefore largely workshop based.This assumption is
reinforced by the fact that, unlike shoemaking,there appearsto be a total absenceof
embezzlementaccusationsinvolving those in the tailoring trade.
Gender
If work was largely conductedwithin the workshop,canwe ascertainwhetherwomen
51
worked there too? According to historical studiesthe production of clothes in this period
was actually divided between tradespopulatedby men and those populated largely by
women. Katrina Honeyman statesthat while women `were employed in female sectors',
such as `dressmakingand millinery', `skilled men controlled the substantialtailoring
84
trade'. Likewise Bridget Hill arguesthat in the eighteenthcentury female entry to skilled
trades `was confined to those regardedas traditionally `women's trades' such as `millinery'
gs
`mantua-making'.
Ivy Pinchbeck's pioneering study also affirmed that the `skilled
and
trades left almost entirely in the handsof women' during this period were those belonging
to `milliners, mantua-makers,staymakers', and, of these,she rated millinery asbeing `first
in importance'.86Campbell also describedmillinery as being `no Male Trade', as the
milliner provided èvery thing to the Ladies that can contribute to set off their Beauty'
including `Smocks,Aprons, Tippits, Handerchiefs' while `some of them deal in Habits for
Riding and Dressesfor the Masquerade'.87Tilly and Scott reiterate that milliners were
indeed female trades-peopleas the `women ran their enterprisesindependently of their
husbands'88 Mantua-making was also undoubtedly a female preserve: thus, Campbell
claims that `she (the mantua-maker)is Sister to the Taylor', making `Night-Gowns,
Mantuas, and Petticoats', and employing `Journeywomen' rather than journeymen in the
89
process,
JaneRendall links the origin of female dominance in thesetradesto the early eighteenth
century, when, in places such as York and Norwich, the guilds of mercers and drapers `had
fought a losing battle againstwomen setting up as mantua makers, dressmakersand
90
Indeed female involvement in the tailoring trade itself had been fairly
milliners'
common in the early modern period, largely due to labour shortages.However, the
eighteenthcentury witnesseda growing consciousnessamong artisans of a `male property'
of skill, and this tendedto exclude women from trades in which they had previously
91
worked. Thus, Aberdeen tailors in the eighteenthcentury, for example, actually
ìntroduced punitive measuresto exclude female participation in their trades'. 2 Despite
such pressureswomen continued to be involved, particularly in certain sectorsof the trade.
Elizabeth Sanderson'sstudy of women's work in eighteenth-centuryEdinburgh found that
of 118 single women who operatedtheir own businesses,42 operatedas milliners, and 18
as mantua-makers,reinforcing the importance of these trades to women,93
Although the availablesourcesprovideno evidenceasto the genderdivision labour

of
within the actualBristol workforce,it is nevertheless
possibleto draw someconclusions
4
aboutgenderdivisionsat the top of the trade,betweenthe ownersof businesses.
52
Evidence from two Bristol trade directories (seetable 2: 1) for 1775 and 1794 suggeststhat
tailoring in the city was largely a male concern,with women never accounting for more
95
5
than per cent of the total number of masters. It is likely, as already stated,that these
were mainly widows continuing their husbands'businesseswith the aid of foremen. This
in
Sanderson
in
Thus,
that
the
the
the
argues
certainly
country.
was
practice elsewhere
eighteenth-centuryEdinburgh tailoring trade the only women who were òfficially allowed
6
involved'
be
`wives
to
and widows'. Mercers, who were providers of materials
were
including silk, were an even more male-dominatedgroup; all of them were men. The
Bristol stay-making trade was also predominantly male; men never constituted less than 80
per cent of the total number of masters.Neverthelessthe fact that women comprised
between 15 and 20 per cent of mastersamong this trade does suggestthis was a trade in
Table 2: 1 : Gender Breakdown of Masters in Bristol's Garment Trades: 1775 and 1794
Trade
1775 Total
Tailors
106
Male
101
95.28%
17(85%)
6(40%)
Female
5
4.72%
3(15%)
9(60%)
16 (100%)
1794Total
89
Male
88
98.88%
17(80.95%)
6(35.29%)
Female
1
1.12%
4(19.05%)
11(64.71%)
4 (100%)
Stay-makers 20
21
Milliners
15
17
Mantua16
4
makers
Haberd28
17 (65.38%) 9 (34.62%)
21(75%)
26
7 (25%)
ashers
Mercers
11
7000%)
11(100%)
7
Shoemakers 125
64(98.46%) 1 1.54%
65
122 (97.6%) 3(2.4%)
Sources:Sketchley'sBristol Directory 1775 (1971 reprint); Mathews's Bristol Directory 1793-4 (Bristol,
1794)
which women were more able and willing to become involved. The figures for
haberdasheryoffer a more convincing example of a trade that offered openings to women.
While 25 per centof all mastersamongthis tradewerefemalein 1775,this hadgrownto

almost 35 per cent by 1794, an increasethat was unlikely to be accounted for solely by the
involvementof widows.Althoughwomenpredominatedin millinery, forming 60 per cent

of the total in 1775,andalmost65 per centin 1794,this paintsa rathermisleadingpicture.
The small number of milliners in Bristol, from which these figures arise, suggestthat
millinery was neither a major component of clothes production in the city, nor a mainstay
of female work opportunities. Likewise, although 100 per cent of mantua-makerswere
female, their numbers were small and appearto have been declining. The number of
mantua makers in the city fell from 16 to 4 in the course of twenty years, suggestingthat
the demand for their serviceswas declining in late eighteenth-centuryBristol. However,
this seemsto have been in line with patterns elsewhere:thus, the number of mantua makers
operatingin Edinburghin any givenyearwasnot largeeither,being 18 in 1752and23 in

1754.97
Whetherthe lower Bristol figuresweredueto specificlocal factorssuchas
53
from
London,
hard
is
from
to tell.
competition
other production centres,and particularly
Female trades such as theseundoubtedly faced local competition from the male-centred
tailoring trade. According to Rendall, millinery was among those trades in which `several
complaints by women writers of the difficulties faced by women in business,given the
98
has
described
how
Sanderson
by
1790s.
the
presenceof male competition' were arising
mantua-makershad never been able to totally dominate the production of women's clothes.
Indeed, mantua-makinghad only `first appearedat the end of the seventeenthcentury', and
before
`had
for
been
this period, they
tailors
since
responsible making women's clothes'
`continued to make women's clothes for sometime after this and made women's riding
99
clothes until the end of the century'.
Adverts inserted by tailors in the Bristol newspapers(seetable 1:2), provide a meansby
which to assessthe extent to which tailors in Bristol in the period from 1769 to 1800made
100
both.
Of forty-three adverts, nineteen were gendereither men's or women's clothes, or
neutral in terms of mentioning the sex of their intended customers.Of the remaining
twenty four, four made no mention of serving female customers,including John Totterdell
who mentioned serving `Gentlemen' at the Hotwells, but not women, and SamuelWilly
101
`makes
Clothes
for
for
Gentlemen'
but seemingly not
who
women. A further nine made
mention of serving women, but only with a `Ladies Riding Dress', a practice which
Sandersonstateswas the norm.102A further eleven adverts, such as that by JamesGerish,
made mention of serving `Gentlemenand Ladies', though whether the latter were served
103
from
dresses
is
impossible
the evidence. Some
to ascertain
with goods other than riding
adverts were more explicit. Thus, GeorgePacker McCarthy offered àll Sorts of
CLOATHS (sic)' for `Men, Women, and Childrens Wear', while Fortunatus Hagley who
104
`Gentlemen
Catering to both sexesmay have been
Ladies'.
sought the custom of
and
synonymouswith the ready-madetrade. George Cole, one such producer, possesseda
stock that consistedof `Ladies and Gentlemen's stript Elastic and Beaver upper Coats'
among other things, while George Withy offered `Women's Cloaks' along with male
items.105Adverts that actually offered women's dresses,the preserve of the mantua-maker,
were not that numerous,although they were becoming more so by the end of the century.
Thus, in 1774, F. Lloyd offered to make `Habits' for `Ladies', Moran, Burnell and Morgan
offered a `Lady's habit and skirt' for sale in 1796, Robert Tripp offered to make women's
dressesin 1793 and 1800, and Davis traded as a `Ladies' Habit-Maker and Taylor (sic)' in
1796.106
Thus 20 out of the 24 tailors whose adverts have been collected provided at least
some female attire, though some only with riding dresses,while eleven, representinga
quarter of all the adverts, offered a wider range of female items, including dresses.These
54
developments
may explainthe drop in the numberof mantua-makers,
especiallywith the
developmentof the ready-madetrade in clothes.
Employment and Recruitment - the House of Call

In contrast to the use of direct adverts for labour placed in newspapersby master
shoemakers,it was the houseof call systemthat lay at the heart of the labour recruitment
processin the tailoring trade. Farr arguesthat `journeymentailors had long had their own
housesof call' in England, and that, in common with their French and German
107
counterparts,theseservedas `clearing-housesfor workers'. According to Prothero,
`housesof call' were basedat `public houses' where 'members looking for work registered
their names', and mastersàpplied when they neededmen', when those waiting the longest
108
received priority. Rule arguesthat the houseof call played a central role in employment
109
because
it
labour
àcted
relations
as a
exchange'. At `sometailors' housesof call'
seniority was predicated on age and two or three books were held, so that the `more senior
membershad their nameson the first book and always received priority in gaining work
'
lo
those
over
on the second'. Master tailors generally favoured this system as an insistence
on meeting the seven-yearapprenticeshipcriteria `guaranteeda certain level of skill',
while the easy accessto labour which the systemprovided meant that men could be
quickly hired èven for half a day's work'. The houseof call system also allowed some
controls to be placed over workmanship; evidenceof this can be seenin the tailors' rule
that a member would be expelled from the houseof call if he was `complained of three
times by masters'.' 11The benefits of the houseof call system to the tailoring trade, were
outlined by one writer in 1745.This account claimed that the trade was 'very precarious'
becauseorder books were full one minute and empty the next. It was therefore beneficial
for `the Journeymento assembledaily at certain publick Houses of Call' from where
masterscould be supplied àt a Minute's Warning' with àny Number of Journeymenthey
'
12
wanted'. The house of call systemalso provided clear benefits for workers. Thus,
Campbell describedthe role of the Àle-house' as both an employment exchange,since
`the Masters go there to enquire when they want Hands', and an unemployment relief
centre. `The House of Call', he wrote, gives them Credit for Victuals and Drink while they
'
13
are unemployed'.
The use of the `houseof call' was clearly evident in the Bristol tailoring trade. Twenty
were mentioned in the Bristol pressbetween 1763 and 1796 (see table 2:2). In December
1770, for example, the `JOURNEYMEN TAYLORS' addressedthe `MASTER
TAYLORS of this City (sic)' concerning the
relocation of two separatehousesof call.
55
While one was relocated from `the Crown' on Needless-Bridgeto 'the Sun' in Christmas`the
in
Three
Broad-Mead'
Stars
Seven
to
from
Moon
`the
the
and
other was moved
street,
Compassesin the Horse-Fair'. 114As theseexamplesindicate, insertions were normally
house
to
in
Bristol
another
was
of
call
moved
the
newspaperswhen a particular
placed
fact
in
the
total
figures
house,
number
that
these
underestimate
the
may
result
with
public
for
Though
in
in
the
institutions
Bristol
this
reasons
changing
period.
operating
of such
is
houses
these
of call as employment exchanges a
premisesare never stated,use of
Sun'
`the
journeymen
took
Thus,
at
the group of
up residence
who
recurrent theme.
Masters
for
Commands
the
àttend
there
the
as usual', while
that
they
of
would
advised
for
`shall
that
they
Compasses'
`Three
attend
those now ensconcedat the
notified masters
'15
dual
house
The
therefore
Favors'.
Continuance
a
purposeas a
served
the
of call
of your
labour.
In
May
for
journeymen
could
obtain
and as a place where masters
reception-centre
1771, for example, the landlord of the `Three Compassesin the Horse-Fair' advertisedfor
`JOURNEYMEN TAYLORS' to attend his premisesand also reassuredthe `Master16
'
This was no isolated
(sic)'.
Workmen
Taylors (that they) shall be serv'd with good
Table 2: 2 : Houses of Call used by Bristol's Journeymen Tailors, 1763-1796
House of Call
Ship
King's Head
Crown
Sun
Moon and Seven Stars
Three Compasses
Pye-Ball-Horse
Swan
Plumeof Feathers
White Lion
Cock
Kings Head
Kings Arms
Ship and Castle
CrownandLeek
Street/Parish*
Broad Street- Christchurch
Wine Street- Christchurch
Needless-Bridge- Unknown
Christmas Street- St. John
Broad-Mead - St. James
Horse-Fair - St. James
Pithay-Gate- Christchurch
Broad Street - Christchurch
Ref/Date**
FFBJ 15/10/1763
FFBJ 15/10/1763
BJ 1/12/1770
BJ 1/12/1770
BJ 8/12/1770
BJ 8/12/1770
FFBJ 15/2/1772
Bgaz 8/4/1773
Tucker Street - St. Paul
BJ 6/11/1773
St. James'sBack - St. James

Broad-Mead - St. James
Silver Street- St. James
Bgaz 17/11/1774
SFBJ 11/10/1777
SFBJ 18/7/1778
Wine Street- Christchurch
BJ 6/11/1773
St.James'sChurch-yard- St.James
BJ 6/11/1773
SmallStreet- St Leonard
SFBJ31/3/1781
SFBJ 19/8/1786
Prince Frederick
Lewins Mead - St.James
FFBJ 10/10/1789
Full Moon
Broad Street- Christchurch
Bmerc 11/10/1790
White Lion
St. JamesBack - St. James
Old Globe
Bgaz 24/3/1796
Christmas Street - St. John
SFBJ 26/3/1796
Marquis of Granb
St. JamesBack - St. James
* Streetswere usually the only form of addressgiven in the insertions. These were matched to parishesby
way of cross-referencingwith a rates index. Bristol RatesIndex: Parishesand Streetstherein, 1800-1923 in
Bristol ReferenceLibrary (BL 14/15).
** For full referencesseethe text and footnotes.
instance.In 1772,for example,JosephBryanwho had òpen'da HOUSEOF CALL (sic)'

at the `Pye-Ball-Horse'in `Pithay-Gate'informedthe `Societyof Merchant-Taylors(sic)'
that he could supply them with `Men of unquestionableAbilities' becausehe had twentyfour men who were ìmmediately ready'. ' 7 This use was again evident in November 1773
56
`WhiteWine-street
to
in
the
`Plume-of-Feathers'
moved
journeymen
the
using
when the
Workmen'
àble
(sic)'
that
would
informed
`Master-Taylors
in
the
Tucker-street,
Lion'
and
'18
`Society
1774
in
November
the
Likewise
of
when
`be
to
supplied'.
constantly
continue
Passage'
the
in
to
`Cyder-House
`SWAN'
from
(sic)'
Taylors
the
Journeymen
moved
`KING's-Head' on St. James'sBack, they advised the `GentlemenMERCHANT
'
19
By
Men'.
Employers
be
with good
TAYLORS (sic)' that `Care shall taken to supply our
house
become
had
Back
St
James's
of call as
LION'
a
`WHITE
1790
October
the
on
`TWENTY able Workmen' were required and askedto apply at the aforementioned
120
alehouse.
Labour Mobility and Tramping
The house of call therefore clearly operatedas a centre at which journeymen could register
for work and be distributed to vacantjobs. This leavesunanswered,however, whether, the
had
travelled
local
those
facilitated
greater
who
or
this
that
men
were
network
workers
in
important
historians,
tramping
role
played an
distancesin searchof work. According to
Travelling
`work
journeymen'
to
ùnemployed
to travel seek
and experience'.
allowing
journeymen were thereby `supporteden route by the local societies of their respective
trades'. They were paid an allowance of either a half-penny or penny per mile at each
'2'
tramping
With
miners,
and
the
potters,
spinners,
cotton
of
exception
stopping point.
122
Access
to
trades.
be
throughout
to
eighteenth-century
ubiquitous
networks were thought
Thompson
Thus,
the
flexibility.
restricted
compares
such networks undoubtedly provided
the
district',
to
the
`confined
the
to
of
example
the
cotton spinner, who was
position of
123
Tramping
in
`get
town'.
was a common phenomenon,
work any
shoemakerwho could
in
fact
it
in
but
in
England,
Europe
operatedon a more extensive
where
as well,
not only
including
tailoring
in
for
instance,
In
France,
trades
and
training
shoemaking
many
scale.
the
trip
to
three
country
to
across
year
seven
a
conduct
men
actually required young
learning the trade's skills. 124According to Farr migratory labour was consequently à
constant feature of the manufacturing economy of Europe's cities', with the result that
125
labor'.
Èurope's workshops were largely peopled by a floating population of casual
Josef Ehmer's study of `central Europeanartisans' in this period reacheda similar
in
journeymen'
finding
least
àt
the
three-quarters
that
employed
artisan
of
conclusion,
126
led
have
Rule to argue
levels
Such
high
immigrants'.
`consisted
trades
of mobility
of
that the tramping system in France was `more universal, more ritualised and more of an
'27
journal
in
The
in
life
England.
than
the
the
of the
expectedperiod
cycle of
artisan'
French glazier, Jacques-LouisMenetra, bears testimony to this. Between 1757 and 1763 he
128
length
breadth
different
30
travelled to
towns and cities and acrossthe
and
of France.
57
Chasesuggeststhat lower mobility rates among English artisansmay have been a product
of the SettlementLaws, which encouragedmore artisansto stay where they were entitled
129
to poor relief. By contrast,however, Hobsbawmbelieved that `the SettlementLaws
hardly incommoded the artisan' and Chambersfound that, even in early modem England,
mobility rates were such as to suggestthat the SettlementLaws did not createa `serious
barrier to the movement of single able-bodiedyoung men and women'. 130The fact that
tramping journeymen were sure of receiving financial support from their trade also tends to
undermine Chase'sargument.Tramping journeymen were financially supportedduring
their trip, they only stayedin placesto work, and if no such work was available they
returned home.
The Bristol evidence suggeststhat tramping was common among the city's shoemakers
and tailors. The numerousinsertions in Bristol's newspapersrelating to housesof call
indicate that tramping was an important factor in the Bristol tailoring trade, especially
because,as Rule asserts,in the tailoring trade the tramping network was organisedaround
131
house
the
of call system. Likewise, Chasenotes that the existenceof housesof call
àmong London tailors from the 1720s' actually `facilitated tramping'. 132The importance
of tramping to tailors were to the fore in the memories of a `general secretary' of the
tailors' union, set down in the mid-nineteenth century. Looking back at the òld days', he
statedthat tramping was a `symbol of independence'and that a `man was scarcely
133
he
had
done
his turn on the road'. On the basis of such
considereda good tailor until
evidence, Leeson arguesthat the `tailors certainly had a developedtramping custom in the
eighteenth century', to the extent that 6,000 London tailors used `tramping as a strike
weapon' in 1764.134
By contrast with the tailoring trade, the evidence suggeststhat tramping among
shoemakers,organisedaround the houseof call, was a later development. Thus, while
communications between London and Bristol shoemakerscan be traced back to the late
fourteenth century, an èxtensivenetwork for tramping' among shoemakerswas not
However, once establishedthis network appearsto have offered
establisheduntil 1784.135
an extensive tramping experience.In 1791, for example, a London shoemakerby the name
of Thomas Prestontramped to Preston,Kent, Essex,Birmingham, Nottingham, Sheffield,
Warrington, Manchester,Liverpool, Dublin, Cork, Bristol, Bath, Oxford, Maidenhead,
before returning to London. And, he remarked; such `peregrinations
are by no means
136
unusual'. Neverthelesswhile details of the usesand whereaboutsof housesof call in the
tailoring trade regularly appearedin Bristol's newspapers,not a single insertion
placed by
58
Contemporary
house
found
for
this
evidence suggests
call
was
period.
of
a shoemaking
he
Lackington
James
different
find
Thus,
that
to
recalled
strategies
work.
shoemakersused
Sir,
"Pray
in
in
Bristol
1791
them
the
with
words
and addressed
visited master shoemakers
have you got any occasion?", a term used by journeymen shoemakers`when seeking
137
he
did
house
in
London
John
to
Likewise,
Brown
a
not
go
arrived
when
employment'.
for
looking
he
but
Thus,
his
from
to
work.
shop
shop
of call and register
name,
rather
describescalling at a `shabby-looking shop' to enquire for work and finding the master
`half drunk' 138This type of evidenceindicates that employment in the shoemakingtrade
.
did
from
directly
However,
this
alone
not necessarily
was normally gained
employers.
less
important
In
in
tailoring.
than
that
tramping
order to assessthe
shoemaking
mean
was
data
is
in
detail,
two
trades
these
required. Although
quantitative
relative mobility of
more
records of tramping are largely qualitative in their nature, the mobility of the two trades
books
for
by
be
the period. Bristol poll
the
can, nevertheless, assessed
use of electoral poll
books listed a voter's name,trade, and geographicallocation. Since voters who had
registered to vote in Bristol were always entitled to vote in the city's elections, regardless
of where they subsequentlymoved to, it is possible to measurethe ratio of voters resident
within and outside Bristol. This makesit possible to assessthe mobility of the total
electorateand to comparethis with mobility levels for shoemakersand tailors. Three poll
books survive for this period from the election years of 1774,1781, and 1784. Data from
the poll book for 1754 has also been included in order to gain a greater senseof change
139
over time.
The relatively open nature of the franchise in Bristol in this period meansthat the Bristol
electorateprovides a satisfactory sample of mobility for the Bristol population as a whole.
This is becausethe averageelectorateover the period stood at 5,585, representing9 per
cent of Bristol's population figure of 60,000 for 1800. The averagenumber of voters over
the four years actually resident in Bristol was 4,003, or 7 per cent of Bristol's population
figure for 1800.140
Shoemakersconstituted between 5.63 per cent and 6.38 per cent of all
voters over this thirty-year period, while tailors made up between 2.84 and 3.06 per cent of
the total electorate.141Artisans from these two trades gained their voting rights by meansof
the `freeman' statusthat accompaniedcompletion of an apprenticeship in Bristol. This
meansthat the sample provides a good representationof those shoemakersand tailors
142
involvement
in
had
in
Bristol.
The figures, however, do not
their trades
whose
originated
allow a distinction between mastersandjourneymen; therefore one can expect the figures
to under-representmobility, if anything. Masters were less likely to have been mobile,
59
in
building
had
the
time
they
up
a
customer-base
one
considering
andresources
spent
locality.
Table 2:3 : Out-Voters as a Percentage of the Bristol Electorate (BE), Shoemaker
Electorate (SE), and Tailor Electorate (TE), 1754-1784
TE
SE
Year
BE
16%
16%
17%
1754
34%
28%
23%
1774
34%
32%
1781
33%
35%
35%
32%
1784
Source: TheBristol Poll Book (1754); The Bristol Poll Book (1774); The Bristol Poll Book (1781); The
Bristol Poll Book (1784)
Table 2:3 illustrates the extent to which the Bristol electorate(hereafter BE), the
(hereafter
SE),
TE) represented
(hereafter
the
tailor
a
electorate
shoemakerelectorate
and
mobile populace. It assessesthe proportion of voters who lived outside Bristol, a group
known as out-voters. By treating the number of shoemakersand tailors as a constituency in
themselves,the rateof mobility in thesetradescanbe comparedto that of the entireBristol

electorate.This data revealsa marked trend towards greater mobility over the thirty-year
period.Thus,the proportionof out-votersin the electorateasa whole morethandoubled,

rising from 16 per cent in 1754 to 35 per cent in 1784. This reveals that those registeredto
vote in Bristol were an increasingly mobile population. Thus while just over a quarter
(28%) of Bristol's voters did not live in the city in 1774, this had increasedto over a third
(35%)by 1784.Mobility levelsfor the tailors in the electoraterevealeda similar story.In

fact, the proportion of TE out-voters increasedeven more dramatically than within the
electorateas a whole between 1754 and 1774. In theseyears the proportion more than
doubled, rising from 16 to 34 per cent. However, this processappearsto have slowed
thereafter with the result that there was little further changein 1781 and 1784. Poll book
datarevealsa snapshotof the locationof voterswhenelectionswerecalled.Thus,the TE

figuresrevealthat aroundone-thirdof tailors consistentlylived outsideof Bristol. Yet,
although high, these rates of mobility do not appearto have been unique to the tailors in
the electoratebut wereevidentthroughoutthe electorateasa whole.

However, despite thesegenerally high rates, table 2:3 shows that shoemakerswere slightly
less mobile than either the Bristol electorateas a whole or the tailors as a sub-group. This
was most evident in 1774 when only 23 per cent of shoemakerswere of out-voters,
comparedto 28 per cent of the whole electorateand 34 per cent of tailors. However, by
1781 and 1784, the rates for shoemakerswere, at 32 per cent, only marginally below those
of the other groups. Thus, by the 1780saround one-third of shoemakerslived consistently
outside Bristol. Although the SE figure dipped below that of the tailors in 1774, it nearly
60
links
idea
in
tramping
1780s.
that
This
the
TE
the
wider
supports
matched
mobility rates
SE
In
1780s.
in
the
the
trade
addition,
mobility
shoemaking
until
were not established
figures for the period as a whole, support the idea that, despitethe absenceof evidence
in
houses
as
versed
almost
well
of call, shoemakerswere, nevertheless,
concerning
tramping methodsas were tailors. While mobility doesnot necessarilyequateto the use of
in
increase
is
it
this
that
tramping
mobility was not
system,
unlikely
an organised
connectedto the growth of such a system.
Nevertheless,though high mobility ratesamong tailors and shoemakers,reinforces the
image of the artisan as a mobile, tramping figure, it should be rememberedthat the entire
in
line
findings
These
displayed
with
are
remarkably similar rates of mobility.
electorate
Elizabeth Baigent's extensivesocio-economicstudy of Bristol in the 1770s.Baigent
discovered that àrtisans' formed around 60% of the Bristol electorateduring the 1774
143
election. This suggeststhat the congruity of mobility rates among the three groups may
be due to the fact that the electoratewas largely composedof artisans.The high level of
mobility among the Bristol electoratesuggeststhat Bristol's artisans, regardlessof trade,
highly
a
mobile group.
were
Mobility rates can be further interrogatedby assessingthe distribution of out-voters across
five clearly defined geographicalareas.These figures are representedin Tables 2:4,2: 5,
and 2:6, which deal respectively with the BE, SE, and TE constituencies.It is appropriate
to begin such an analysis by assessingthe proportion of out-voters who were basedin the
counties of Gloucestershireand Somerset.Figures for Bristol-based voters were basedon
those who live within the city boundaries,and so excluded voters living locally but in
outlying areas.Thus, for example, voters living in Brislington to the south of Bristol, and
those basedin Kingswood to the north-eastof the city, were classedas out-voters despite
the fact that they lived in such close proximity to Bristol. Such voters can therefore hardly
be representedas examplesof a markedly mobile population. Rather, out-voters who
resided in Gloucestershireand Somerset(hereafter known as G-S) must be defined as local
migrants. This classification is supportedby other studies. So, for example, a study of
Cardington in Bedfordshire in the 1780sdiscovered that 50 per cent of all migrants settled
144
6
their
within miles of
village of origin. In Bristol, the proportion of local migrants
among out-voters is reflected in the number of voters basedin the G-S area. (Sec tables
2:4,2: 5,2: 6). Among the BE, SE, and TE groups there was a tendency over the thirty years
for the ratio of out-voters in G-S to drop in line with a corresponding rise in the proportion
of out-voters basedin London. Among the BE samplethe proportion of out-voters basedin
61
Table 2: 4: Geographic Distribution of the Bristol Electorate (BE), 1754-1784

Oth. 5
Total
SW(4)
Group
G-S i
Lon(3)
Bristol
WC(2)
26
4,992
72
371
267
1754
4,209
47
0.52%
1.44%
100%
5.35%
% of vote
84.31%
7.43%
0.94%
3.32%
100%
9.2%
47.38%
34.10%
% of out6%
vote
43
5,384
93
434
3,899
802
113
1774
0.8%
100%
1.73%
14.9%
8.06%
% of vote
72.42%
2.1%
2.9%
100%
6.26%
54.01%
29.23%
% of out7.61%
vote
57
5,914
899
687
124
1781
3,958
189
0.96%
2.1%
100%
15.2%
3.19%
11.62%
% of vote
66.93%
2.91%
6.34%
100%
9.66%
35.12%
45.96%
of outvote
75
6,049
113
3,947
876
182
856
1784
1.24%
100%
1.87%
65.25%
14.48%
3.01%
14.15%
% of vote
3.57%
100%
5.38%
8.66%
40.72%
41.67%
% of outvote
Source: The Bristol Poll Book (1754); TheBristol Poll Book (1774); TheBristol Poll Book (1781); TheBristol Poll Book
(1784)
(1) G-S = counties of Gloucestershireand Somerset.
(2) WC = Counties of the West Country, encompassingWiltshire, Dorset, Hampshire, Devon, and Cornwall.
(3) Lon = London and countiesbordering the capital, encompassingBerkshire, Kent, Middlesex, and Surrey, though the
major shareof the figure came from London itself.
(4) SW = South Wales, including the Border Counties,particularly Herefordshire.
(5) Oth = Other counties not easily defined by region, and refers to voters basedlargely in the Midlands or in northern
counties.
Table 2:5 : Geographic Distribution of the Shoemaker Electorate (SE), 1754-1784
Group
1754
of vote
% of outvote
1774
Bristol
234
83.27%
255
76.81%
G-S 1
23
8.18%
48.94%
WC(2)
1
0.36%
2.13%
Lon(3)
22
7.83%
46.81%
SW(4)
1
0.36%
2.13%
Oth, 5
-
Total
281
100%
100%
30
9.04%
38.96%
4
1.20%
5.19%
38
11.45%
49.36%
4
1.20%
5.19%
1
0.3%
1.3%
332
100%
100%
4
1.06%
3.36%
376
100%
100%
6
1.55%
4.8%
2
0.52%
1.6%
387
100%
100%
of vote
of outvote
257
1781
62
43
10
% of vote
68.35%
11.44%
2.66%
16.49%
% of out.
36.14%
8.4%
52.1%
vote
1784
262
40
5
72
67.7%
% of vote
1,29%
18.6%
10.34%
% of out32%
57.6%
4%
vote
For sourcesand a breakdown of the regions, seeTable 2:4.
Table 2: 6 : Geographic Distribution of Tailor Electorate (TE), 1754-1784

Group
1754
% of vote
% of outvote
1774
% of vote
% of out.
vote
1781
of vote
of out.
vote
1784
% of vote
Bristol
119
83.8%
WC(2)
G-S i
10
7.05%
43.48%
SW(4)
Oth. 5
Lon(3)
13
9.15%
56.52%
Total
142
100%
100%
98
65.77%
21
14.09%
2
1.34%
26
17.45%
1
0.67%
1
0.67%
149
100%
41.18%
3.92%
50.98%
1.96%
1.96%
100%
110
65.87%
15
8.98%
4
2.4%
33
19.76%
3
1.8%
2
1.2%
167
100%
26.32%
7.02%
57.89%
5.26%
3.51%
100%
119
64.67%
19
10.33%
3
1.63%
40
21.74%
2
1.09%
1
0.54%
184
100%
3.07%
1.54%
100%
29.23%
of out4.62%
61.54%
vote
vor sourcesana a nreakaown of the regions, seeTable 2:4.
62
G-S stood at 47 per cent in 1754, and then grew to 54 per cent in 1774,before falling to 46
per cent in 1781, and 42 per cent in 1784.During the sameperiod, the proportion of the BE
samplein London stood at 34 per cent in 1754,before falling to 29 per cent in 1774,and
then rising to 35 per cent in 1781 and 41 per cent in 1784.By 1784, therefore, almost as
many out-voters lived in London as were basedin Gloucestershireand Somerset.
This changewas even more pronouncedamong the SE and TE samples.The proportions of
in
in
1754,
fell
from
39
1774,
based
49
in
G-S
to
per
cent
shoemakers
consistently
per cent
to 36 per cent in 1781, and 32 per cent in 1784.Meanwhile the number of shoemakers
basedin London grew dramatically as a proportion of out-voters, from 47 per cent in 1754,
to 49 per cent in 1774,to 52 per cent in 1781 and 57 per cent in 1784. London was a more
significant basefor out-voting shoemakersthan for the electorateas a whole. Thus, from
1774 onwards far more out-voting shoemakersresided in London than in G-S. This pattern
was even more pronouncedamong the TE sample. Indeed, the proportion of tailors based
in London always outweighed those basedin G-S. While G-S claimed 43 per cent of TE
out-voters in 1754, this fell to 41 per cent in 1774, and then to 26 per cent in 1781before
recovering slightly to 29 per cent in 1784. In the sameperiod the proportions basedin
London stood at 56 per cent in 1754,before falling slightly to 51 per cent in 1774, and then
rising to 58 per cent in 1781, and to 62 per cent in 1784. Thus over half of all out-voting
tailors lived in London throughout the entire period, while over half of out-voting
shoemakersresided in the capital from the 1780s.
The overall importance of London is revealedby the fact that the ratio of long distance
migrants among tailors and shoemakerswas not markedly higher than among the electorate
as a whole. This is made clear if the proportion of voters basedin Bristol and G-S are
aggregatedto form an expandedlocal population of voters. Thus among the BE sample
this local population comprised 92 per cent of voters in 1754, falling to 87 per cent in
1774,to 82 per cent in 1781, and to 80 per cent in 1784. Meanwhile the SE sample
produced a similar ratio of 91 per cent in 1754,86 per cent in 1774,80 per cent in 1781,
and 78 per cent in 1784. The TE samplereveals a slightly different trend, due to the very
large proportions basedin London, with ratios of 91 per cent in 1754,80 per cent in 1774,
75 per cent in 1781, and 74 per cent in 1784. That these figures are so similar is an
indication of the importance of London as a migratory attraction for shoemakersand
tailors. Thus, according to Hobsbawm, when it came to eighteenth-century artisans,
London's `magnetismwas exceptional'. 145
63
This can be further illustrated by identifying the number of out-voters who were based
Bristol's
fairly
in
G-S
in
London.
A
of
out-voters were
neither
substantialproportion
nor
basedelsewhere,many of them, in particular, in the West Country and South Wales. In
1754 18 per cent of out-voters lived in areasother than G-S and London, a ratio that stood
in
1784.
By
in
in
18
17
1774,19
1781
cent
contrastthe
at per cent
per cent
and per
for
in
just
4
based
London
in
G-S
SE
the
per
cent
accounted
samplenot
or
proportion of
1754, rising to 10 per cent by 1784. Among the TE sample0 per cent were basedin these
figures
in
1784.
These
in
in
1774
1754,8
10
suggestthat
and per cent
areas
per cent
Hobsbawm's claim that labour migration was `primarily regional' in this era was lessvalid
for Bristol over time, and, especially from the 1780s.'46Thus, by the 1780sone in four
tailors, who had at some stagein their lives qualified to vote in Bristol, lived further afield
than Bristol, Gloucestershireor Somerset.The samewas true of approximately one in five
of the shoemakersin the sample.
Conclusion
This chapterhas shown that the most valuable processin the production of both shoesand
clothing was the art of cutting leather or fabric, an operation almost always performed by
the master himself or a foreman. Qualitative evidencedrawn from trade dictionaries and
crime reports, particularly regarding embezzlement,make it clear that shoemakingwas
largely conductedby journeymen on an outworking basis. The division of labour in both
tradeswas gender-centredin terms of the products made. For both trade dictionaries and
newspaperinsertions clearly illustrate that shoemakerswere normally divided between
those making male and female footwear. The sameprinciple operated in the production of
clothes. While tailors made largely male clothes, female clothes were produced by the
milliners and mantua-makers,as thesetradeswere almost exclusively populated by women
according to existing historical studies.The Bristol evidence, however, showed not only
that the numbers of these `female' tradeswere negligible, but that (male) tailors often
made women's dressesand other items. Evidence of female involvement in the Bristol
shoemakingtrade was practically non-existent, though the prevalence of outworking
makes it likely that the wives of shoemakersassistedtheir husbands.Analysis of tramping
showed that shoemakers,but more particularly tailors, were fairly mobile groups, although
not substantially more than Bristol's voters as a whole. However, tailors and shoemakers
did reveal a more marked tendency to congregatein London than voters as a whole,
reinforcing London's image as an epicentre of eighteenth-century artisanal production.
Despite this, journeys undertakenby artisansin this period appearedto have been primarily
regional, with the obvious exception of the capital. Very few shoemakersand tailors living
64
further
London,
franchise,
freeman
than
Bristol,
the
ventured
and possessing
outside of
Gloucestershire
or Somerset.Thus,althoughthe extentof artisanmobility wasclearly
it
be
overstated.
should
not
evident
65
ENDNOTES
1R. Campbell, TheLondon Tradesman(London, 1747; 1969 Reprint), p. 216,
2Ibid., pp. 216-217.
3 Campbell, London Tradesman,p. 218; Anon., Book of Trades,or Library of the Useful Arts: Part 2
SLondon,1806), p. 90.
Sarah Farley's Bristol Journal (hereafter SFBJ) 11/7/1789,18/7/1789; Bristol Quarter Sessions,4/7/1789,
Bristol Record Office, JQS/P/111.
s D. Alexander, Retailing in England during the Industrial Revolution (London, 1970), pp. 142-143.
6 Anon., Book of Trades,p. 86.
7Ibid., pp. 87-89.
8Felix Farley's Bristol Journal (hereafterFFBJ) 24/5/1783.
9 Bristol Journal (hereafterBJ) 12/8/1769,BJ 25/5/1771.
10Bristol Gazette(hereafter Bgaz) 22/6/1775.
11BJ 16/3/1771,16/1/1773,21/9/1776; Bonner and Middleton's Bristol Journal (hereafter BMBJ) 3/8/1776.
12Bgaz 24/9/1789,1/10/1789.
"Annual Register 26/3/1773.
14Bgaz 19/9/1799.
15Anon., Book of Trades,p. 89.
16Campbell, London Tradesman,p. 218; Anon., Book of Trades,p. 89.
" Campbell, London Tradesman,p. 218.
18M. Sonenscher,Work and Wages:Natural Law, Politics and the eighteenth-centuryFrench trades
(Cambridge, 1989), p. 189.
19J. F. Rees,TheArt and Mystery of a Cordwainer, (London, 1813); J. D. Devlin, The Guide to Trade: The
Shoemaker(London, 1840), p. 9. The latter piece informs us that Reeswas a Bristol shoemaker.
20Rees,Art and Mystery, pp. v-vi (of the preface).
21Ibid.
22J. Lackington, Memoirs of the First Forty-Five Yearsof the Life of JamesLackington, Thepresent
Bookseller in Chiswell-street,Moorfields, London; Written by Himself (London, 1792) p. 169,153.
23Ibid., p. 180.
24Sonenscher,Work and Wages,p. 322.
25BJ 1/7/1769.
26S. Johnson,A Dictionary of the English Language: Two Volumes(London, 1755; 1983 reprint).
27FFBJ 24/5/1783,14/6/1788; Bgaz 17/4/1777.
28FFBJ8/6/1771.
29Lackington, Memoirs, p. 196.

30BJ 23/2/1771.
31Bgaz 9/3/1780.
32Bristol Quarter Sessions,3/1/1793, JQS/P,Bristol Record Office.
33Bgaz 26/3/1772.
'a Sonenscher,Work and Wages,p. 189.
36Ibid.
a' BMBJ 5/7/1777;B.Gaz 10/7/1777.

38BMBJ 5/5/1792;12/5/1792.SeeChapter5 for a full discussionof thesestrikes.
39I, J. Prothero, Artisans and Politics in Early Nineteenth-CenturyLondon: John Gast and his Times
(Folkestone, 1979), p. 24. While Thompson's list of 'true outworkers' included only 'some boot and shoe
workers', Rule considered 'many shoemakers'to be 'representativeof the home-basedout-worker'. SeeE. P.
Thompson, The Making of the English Working Class (London, 1963; 1991 edn,), p. 288, my italics; J. Rule,
TheExperience of Labour in Eighteenth-CenturyIndustry (London, 1981), p. 31.
40J. Rule, 'The Property of Skill in the Period of Manufacture' in P. Joyce (ed.), The Historical Meanings of
Work (Cambridge, 1987), p. 109; Prothero,Artisans and Politics, p. 44.
41J. Swann, Shoemaking(Princes Risborough, Bucks., 1986), pp. 10-11.
42House of CommonsJournals, 5/3/1722, Vol. 20 (1722-1727), p. 161. A Commons committee was ordered
to investigate the complaints of the aforementionedpetition, and the following evidence of outwork was
established.Charles Reynolds, a London master,opined that he had 'delivered several Materials for making
of Shoesto his Journeymen' which were subsequentlypawned, while William Hall `seldom had the same
Materials worked up as he delivered out to his Workmen'. SeeHouse of CommonsJournals, 26/3/1723, Vol.
20 (1722-1727), p. 180. An Act was brought onto the statutebooks in 1722, designedto prevent the
embezzlementof 'materials used in shoemaking' in London. See Styles, 'Embezzlement, industry and the
law', p. 209.
43J. Styles, 'Embezzlement, industry
and the law in England, 1500-1800' in M. Berg, P. Hudson, and M.
Sonenscher,(eds), Manufacture in town and country before thefactory (Cambridge, 1983), p. 173. Styles
66
further noted that 'the concentrationof the ownership of the raw materials' and the 'remotenessof the owner
from the point of manufacture' allowed `peculiar opportunities for fraud', p. 174.
44FFBJ 19/8/1769.
45FFBJ 19/8/1769.
46Bgaz 28/12/1780.
47Styles, 'Embezzlement, industry and the law', p. 177.
48SFBJ 1/3/1788.
49Bgaz 13/10/1791;FFBJ 15/10/1791.
sBristol Mercury (hereafterBmerc), 18/12/1797.
$1Rees,Art and Mystery, pp. 81-84.
52Anon., Crispin Anecdotes,p. 46.
s' A. Clark, Strugglefor the Breeches: Gender and the Making of the British Working Class (London, 1995),
pp. 124-125.
54L. A. Tilly and J. W. Scott, Women,Work, and Family (New York and London, 1978; 1987 edn.), p. 47;
Prothero, Artisans and Politics, p. 44.
" Campbell, London Tradesman,p. 218.
58Ibid., pp. 207-208.
39Bath Chronicle, 28/6/1792.
60Clark, Strugglefor the Breeches,pp. 119-120.
61Bgaz 1/8/1799.
62Sketchley's Bristol Directory 1775 (1971 reprint); Mathews's Bristol Directory 1793-4 (Bristol, 1794).
63SeePage21 of Chapter One.
64BJ 19/1/1771; FFBJ 30/9/1780.
65Campbell, London Tradesman,p. 192; Anon., Book of Trades, p. 81; Prothero, p. 24.
67Ibid., pp. 82-83.
68The haberdasheralso supplied such appendagesto dressas 'buckram, tapes,binding, trimmings, buttons
&c'. Anon., Book of Trades,p. 85.; Campbell, London Tradesman,p. 223.
69M. Delpierre, Dress in France in the Eighteenth Century (Paris, 1996; trans. by C. Beamish, Yale, 1997),
See
`to
French
tailler,
'tailor'
to
the
cut'.
Johnson
meaning
130;
word
the
origin of
similarly attributed
p.
Johnson,A Dictionary.
70FFBJ 7/1/1769.
'1 Ibid.
72SFBJ 12/5/1787.
73Bmerc 2/5/1796.
74E. Gaskell, North and South (1854; Penguin, 1994), p. 53.
's Bmerc 13/5/1793.
76Bgaz 5/9/1793.
"FFBJ 22/11/1800.
7$SFBJ 12/1/1788.
79BJ 27/4/1771.
8Bgaz 25/5/1775,16/11/1775.
81SFBJ 7/6/1777.
82SFBJ19/4/1777.
83Rule,'Propertyof Skill', p. 112,andExperienceof Labour,p. 36.; Prothero,ArtisansandPolitics,p. 24.
84K. Honeyman,Women,GenderandIndustrialisation,1700-1870(London,2000),p. 88.
$SB. Hill, Women,work and sexualpolitics in eighteenth-centuryEngland (Oxford, 1989; 1994 edn.), p. 85.
861 Pinchbeck, WomenWorkersand the Industrial Revolution, 1750-1850 (London, 1930; 1969 edn.), p.
287.
87Campbell,LondonTradesman,
pp. 206-207.
88Tilly and Scott, Women,Work, and Family, p. 49.

89Ibid., p. 227.
90J. Rendall, Womento an Industrializing Society: England 1750-1880 (Oxford, 1990), p. 29.
91Rule, `Property of Skill', pp. 108-109.;M. Chase,Early Trade Unionism: Fraternity, Skill, and the Politics
o 'Labour (Aldershot, 2000), p. 26.
9 Chase,Early Trade Unionism, p. 26.
93B. C. Sanderson,Womenand Work in Eighteenth-Century Edinburgh (London, 1996), pp. 184-194.
Sandersonalso provided a sample of 107 female servants,apprentices,and journeywomen, as 25 were found
in the millinery trade, 14 involved in mantua-making, and 1 in the haberdasherytrade. (pp. 195-202) Figures
for married women's involvement with work, including that of widows, showed that of 98 women, 11 were
milliners and 4 were mantua-makers.(pp. 203-211) The latter information does suggestthat such tradeswere
more the preserveof unmarried and young women than of married or widowed women.
67
94While Poll Books offered the most inclusive sourcefor non-elite men, women were of courseexcluded
from the vote in this period.
95Sketchley'sBristol Directory 1775; Mathews's Bristol Directory 1793-4.
96Sanderson,Edinburgh, pp. 122-123.Even in this scenariowidows were dependenton a 'journeyman to
be
important
tailoring'
that
'the
two
must
of
these
parts
take measurementsand cut the cloth', since
were
'done by men'.
97Sanderson,Edinburgh, p. 123.
98Rendall, Womenin an Industrializing Society,p. 29.
99Sanderson,Edinburgh, p. 2,90.
' Seetabletwo, p. 31.
101BJ 7/7/1770,4/8/1770; Bgaz 9/2/1775; Bmerc 27/9/1790.

102FFBJ 7/1/1769; BJ 11/2/1769;Bgaz 3/3/1774; FFBJ 14/5/1774;Bgaz 26/5/1774; FFBJ 30/10/1779; FFBJ
16/8/1783; SFBJ 10/9/1785;Bgaz 18/4/1799.
103Bgaz 1/8/1771,14/11/1771.
104Bgaz 2/6/1774; FFBJ 10/2/1776.
105SFBJ 12/5/1787,20/11/1790.
106FFBJ 7/5/1774; FFBJ 2/4/1796; Bgaz 5/9/1793; FFBJ 1/1011796;FFBJ 22/11/1800.
107J. R. Farr, Artisans in Europe, 1300-1914 (Cambridge, 2000), p. 214.
108Prothero, Artisans and Politics, p. 30.
109J Rule, Àgainst Innovation? Custom and Resistancein the Workplace, 1700-1850' in T. Barris, (ed.),
Popular Culture in England 1700-1850(London, 1995), p. 173.
'10Ibid., p. 36.
11 Ibid., pp. 37-38.
112Chase,Early Trade Unionism, p. 60.
13 Campbell, London Tradesman,p. 193.
114BJ 1/12/1770,8/12/1770.
"s Ibid.
116FFBJ 18/5/1771.
117FFBJ 15/2/1772,29/2/1772.
118BJ 6/11/1773.
19 Bgaz 17/11/1774.
120Bmerc 11/10/1790.
121Rule, Àgainst Innovation', p. 181; R. A. Leeson, Travelling Brothers: The six centuries' road from craft
fellowship to trade unionism (London, 1979), p. 128; E. J. Hobsbawm, Labouring Men (London, 1964),p.
34.
122Leeson, Travelling Brothers, p. 15.
123Thompson, The Making, p. 219.
124
W. H. Sewell,WorkandRevolutionin France: TheLanguageofLaborfrom the Old Regimeto 1848
(Cambridge,1980),p. 47,
125Farr, Artisans in Europe, pp. 146-147.

126J. Ehmer, 'Worlds of mobility: migration patterns of Viennese artisansin the eighteenth century' in G.
Crossick, (ed.), TheArtisan and the European Town, 1500-1900 (Aldershot, 1997), p. 172.
127Rule, Àgainst Innovation', p. 181.
128J. L. Menetra, Journal of My Life (1764; published with an introduction and commentary by D. Roche,
New York, 1986), p. 40.
130Hobsbawm, Labouring Men, p. 38.; J. D. Chambers,Population, Economy and Society in Pre-Industrial
England (Oxford, 1972), p. 45. Thus the population of Nottinghamshire villages had changedby 37 per cent
between 1606 and 1641.
13'Rule, 'Against Innovation', p. 173.
133Leeson, Travelling Brothers, p. 149.
134Leeson, Travelling Brothers,
pp. 245-246,96.; Chase,Early Trade Unionism, p. 62. For a discussion of
tramping as a strike tactic in Bristol, seechapter 5.
135Leeson, Travelling Brothers, p. 35,126; Chase,Early Trade Unionism, 62.
p.
137
Lackington,Memoirs,p. 458.AlthoughLackingtonspokethesewordsin jest to surpriseold friendshe
hadnot seenfor years,this doesnot by anymeansinvalidatethe worth of his observations.
138J. Brown, Sixty Years' Gleaningsfrom Life's Harvest (Cambridge, 1858), 33.
p.
119The Bristol Poll Book (1754); The Bristol Poll Book (1774); The Bristol Poll Book (1781); The Bristol
Poll Book (1784). None have survived for the years between 1784 and 1800.
'40Ibid. Thusthe total Bristol electorate

stoodat 4,992 in 1754,5,384 in 1774,5,914 in 1781,and6,049 in
1784.Meanwhilethenumbersresidentin Bristol itself stoodat 4,209 in 1754,3,899 in 1774,3,958in
1781,and3,947 in 1784.
68
141Thus there were 281 shoemakersin 1754,332 in 1774,376 in 1781,and 387 in 1784,while there were
142 tailors in 1754,149 in 1774,167 in 1781, and 184 in 1784.
143E. Baigent, `Bristol society in the later eighteenthcentury with special referenceto the handling by
computer of fragmentary historical sources', D. Phil thesis,University of Oxford, (1985), p. 337.
144Chambers,Population, Economy,and Society in Pre-Industrial England, p. 46.
iasHobsbawm,Labouring Men, p. 58,39.
146Ibid., p. 38. Thus among 105 certificates for Newark artisansfound between 1800 and 1850,only 12 came
from outside Nottinghamshire. Seep. 57.
69
PART TWO: LIVING AND WORKING CONDITIONS
70
CHAPTER THREE: THE GEOGRAPHY OF WORK, HOUSING AND

OCCUPATIONAL
ILLNESS AMONG BRISTOL'S SHOEMAKERS AND
TAILORS, 1770-1800
This chapter is concernedwith the concentrationof the shoemakingand tailoring tradesin

Bristol in the late eighteenthcentury, with regard to the distribution of thesetradesacross
Bristol's parishes.By assessingpatterns of distribution it is possible to deepenour
understandingof the two tradesin a number of ways, not least becauseit enablesan
assessmentof the quality of life of the men involved in thesetrades, and their families. The
ability to documentwhere shoemakersand tailors lived helps to answer questionsabout the
types of dwellings inhabited. A range of evidence including autobiographies,crime records
and newspapers,as well as pictorial images from the period provides information on these
matters. Knowledge of living and working conditions can then be utilised to assessissues
of health and to determinewhether illnesseswere occupational or social in their nature.
DISTRIBUTION
Given that the eighteenthcentury was a pre-censusperiod, knowledge of the concentration
of trades in certain places is largely dependentupon qualitative accounts.Thus, an early
nineteenth-centurywriter on the shoemakingtrade talked of Northampton as a place that
possesseda `great number of shoemakers',while Stafford was considered `the principal
mart and manufactory of shoesin England' becausethere were `severalstreetsof
'
in
shoemakers this town'. With regardsto London, John Rees,the Bristol shoemaker,
reckoned that there were `from twenty to thirty thousand' shoemakersin the capital alone
in the early nineteenth century, with 'two hundred thousand' in Britain overall.2 John
Brown's account of his life as a London shoemakerillustrated that entire streetscould, in
some districts, be populated by workers from one trade. Upon arriving in London from
Cambridge, Brown headedfor `Grub-street', which he described as a `quarter where a
great number of the trade resided', while, on another occasion, he made for `Green Arbour
Court', a place in which `many houses' were òccupied entirely by shoemakers.
Campbell, meanwhile, gave a dramatic illustration to the concentration of tailors in London
when he describedthe men of this trade as being as `numerous as Locusts'. 4 Such images
of London as an artisanal epicentre is further enhancedby a list of the most numerous
trades in one single parish. According to Farr, in the late seventeenthcentury, the parish
of
St Giles, Cripplegate was home to 996 weavers, 583 shoemakers,566 tailors and 371
glovers. Theseproportions, Farr concluded, `far outnumbered the 211 other manufacturing
5
occupationsof the parish'. As this illustrates, pre-censusmaterial can lend itself to
71
quantitative analysis.Nevertheless,parish records are not the most efficient meansof

surveying the demographyof a city becausethey only throw light on individual parts.
Cities, however, were composedof multiple parishes.Bristol, for example, had around
twenty parishesin the late eighteenthcentury, including out-lying ones. In addition, parish
records only listed those presentat times of birth, marriage and death. In Bristol, with its
`strong and growing tradition of non-conformity' in the eighteenthcentury, theserecords
6
were not entirely reliable. On first sight, tax returns appeara useful source for study.
However, aside from problems with the administrative efficiency of their collection,
exemptions from the rates excluded many journeymen. In addition, the occupation of the
tax-payer was `rarely listed'.? Such problems have led one researcherto regret that while
Bristol had a `population of about 55,000 in 1770' no `single satisfactory sourcecovers
8
4,000
more than
of them'.
Poll books, becausethey listed voters by parish and occupation included journeymen as
well as mastersdue to the wide franchise. They, therefore, representthe best sourcefor the
purposesof this study. Their utility is further enhancedby the fact that poll books survive
for 1754,1774,1781, and 1784, thus enabling analysis over time. These have been used to
consider the following: the geographicdistribution acrossBristol's parishesof the
electorateas a whole; the distribution of Bristol-based shoemakervoters; and the
distribution of Bristol-based tailor voters. The averagedensity per parish of the
shoemakersand tailors, as well as the overall density of the two trades in the city, can also
be reconstructedusing poll book data. While density reveals the weight each trade carried
in a particular parish, distribution patterns show the extent to which the trade was
concentratedin certain localities.
Of course, given that the poll books did not differentiate between mastersandjourneymen
meansthat the figures may be skewedby differing trends among masterscomparedto
journeymen. To counteract this problem three Bristol trade directories for the years 1775,
1785, and 1794 have been used to assessthe distribution patterns of mastersalone. This
has allowed a comparison betweenpoll book (hereafter PB) and trade directory (hereafter
TD) data. Table 3: 1 provides data on the averagedistribution for the thirty-year period
covered by the poll books, and this is further representedin maps 1,2, and 3 by the use of
five gradations to indicate geographicaldistribution. 9 Table 3: 1 also comparesthe
parish
distribution at the time of the 1801 censuswith that of the poll books between 1754
and
1784. The remarkable congruity between these two setsof figures, especially
considering
that seventeenyears separatesthe poll book of 1784 from 1801, suggeststhat the
poll
72
books provided a relatively accuratepicture of the distribution acrossthe city of the whole
to
Clifton
the
marked
a
area
show
Indeed,
only
the
was
of
area
expanding
population.
distribution
the
data.
This
PB
in
1801
of people
to
increase
areaaside,
compared the
in
both
is
sources.
the
similar
other parishes markedly
among
As table 3: 1 reveals,PB distribution trends for both the shoemakingand tailoring trades
highest
the
Thus,
three
the
with
parishes
appearto mirror the electorateas a whole.
Thus,
21.54
in
cent
of
all
per
the
category.
each
same
were
of
each
population
percentage
29.15
27.61
in
and
lived
St.
James,
of
shoemakers
cent
that
per
also claimed
a parish
voters
14.84
Jacob,
St.
Philip
In
the
per
and
with
parish of
per cent of tailors. secondplace was
St.
Mary
11.88
tailors.
18.67
cent
of
per
per cent of shoemakersand
cent of the electorate,
Table 3: 1 : Average Distribution of Bristol-resident voters, Shoemaker voters (S), and Tailor
1801
Census
in
the
distribution
trends
to
1754-1784,
(T)
compared
voters
Census
1801
%
%
T
Bristol
S
Bristol
%
of
of
Parish
of
returns
voters
voters
0.34%
0.00
0.4%
0.91%
All Saints
0.9%
3.77%
2.64%
Bedminster
2.63%
8.07%
3.18%
4.1%
Castle Precincts
1.29%
1.35%
3.28%
2.37%
Christchurch
8.3%
0.22%
1.29%
2.99%
Clifton
10%
6.28%
2.58%
6.7%
St. Augustine
0.22%
0.22%
0.1%
0.36%
St. Ewen
22.85%
29.15%
27.61%
21.54%
St. James*
1.3%
4.48%
2.18%
2.57%
St. John
0.53%
0.22%
0.49%
0.79%
St. Leonard
0.54%
1.12%
2.09%
1.31%
St. Maryport
7.7%
10.77%
10.63%
9.13%
St. Mary Redcliff
6.05%
5.19%
3.77%
4.4%
St. Michael
3.44%
4.48%
1.79%
5.43%
St. Nicholas
2.92%
2.69%
2.98%
2.93%
St. Peter
20.05%
11.88%
18.67%
14.84%
St. Philip & Jacob
3.28%
3.36%
2.58%
4.4%
St. Stephen
2.69%
2.23%
2.88%
4.76%
St. Thomas
0.27%
0.68%
0.00
St. Werburgh
0.79%
6.92%
5.39%
9.73%
7.04%
Temple
100%
100%
100%
100%
Total
Source: Bristol Poll Books, 1754,1774,1781, and 1784. For the 1801 census,W. Page(ed.), The Victoria
History of the County of Gloucester: Volume Two (London, 1907), pp. 186-187.
* Given that St. Paul was formed in 1794 out of a section of St. James,those listed as living in St. Paul in
1801 were added to the inhabitants of St. Jamesin order to give a commensuratefigure for this area.
% of Bristol voters
Redcliffe occupied third place, with 9.13 per cent of all voters, 10.63 per cent of
and 10.77per centof tailors.Thus,thesethreeparishestogetherclaimed45.51

shoemakers
per cent of total voters, 56.91 per cent of shoemakersand 51.8 per cent of tailors. Thus, the
concentrationof the two tradesin thesethreeareaswas evenmorepronouncedthanit was

for voters as a whole.
73
This picture is best illustrated by comparing maps 1,2, and 3. For easeof description the
five gradationscan be summarisedas follows: as either high distribution (20.00% and
distribution
fairly
(5.00-9.99%),
fairly
high
(10.00-19.99%),
distribution
medium
over),
low distribution (2.00-4.99%), and low distribution (0.00-1.99%). The following picture
emerges.Firstly, the parish of St. Jameswas the only one Bristol's twenty parishesto
by
This
be
levels
distribution
high
the
three
can
explained
groupings.
of
experience
among
the fact that, according to Baigent, 60 per cent of the 1770selectoratewere artisans.St.
10
àrtisan
labelled
Baigent
Jameswas also one of the parisheswhich
as an
parish'.
Baigent's survey also listed St. Peter, St. Philip and Jacob, St. Thomas, Temple, and St.
Mary Redcliff as àrtisan parishes' and concludedthat theseconstituted the ùnfashionable
"
òf
southern and eastern' edges the city'. St. Philip was the only parish to experiencea
fairly high distribution level among all voters, while both this parish and St. Mary Redcliff
fairly
fact
high
levels
both
In
distribution
the
tailors.
and
shoemakers
yielded
among
importance of artisansto the electorateas a whole explains why four of the six parishes
with the highest voter distribution levels were àrtisan' parishes.The artisan parishesof
Temple and St. Mary Redcliff experiencedmedium levels of distribution, comparedto the
high levels seenin St. Jamesand St. Philip. Meanwhile, medium levels of distribution in
St. Augustine and St. Nicholas representedthe highest levels of distribution in any of the
non-artisan parishes.This picture is reinforced by the fact that Bristol'
shoemakerswere
particularly concentratedin the artisan parishesof St. James,St.Philip, and St. Mary
Redcliff. Indeed, distribution of shoemakersamong non-artisan parishesnever went
beyond a fairly low level of distribution. While the tailors repeatedthis trend for the
àrtisan' areasof the eastand south, and for the central non-artisan area,their medium
level of distribution in the parishesof St. Michael and St. Augustine slightly bucked this
trend.
While thesefindingsappearto indicatethat shoemakers

andtailors congregatedin àrtisan'
parishes in greater proportions than the electorateas a whole, it is necessary,nevertheless
to consider change over time. The most convenient way of analysing this, given the
varying sizes of Bristol's parishes,is to break the city into three sectors.Baigent's socioeconomic breakdown was used for this purpose.The easternparishes of St. James,St.
Peter, Castle Precincts, and St. Philip and Jacobwere defined as àrtisan parishes', as were
the parishes south of the River Avon, namely Temple, St. Thomas, St. Mary Redcliff and
Bedminster. The remaining parishesof central Bristol and those on the western fringes of
the city were describedby Baigent as either `wealthy trading parishes' or as `genteel
74
1754-17S4
Elections,
in
Parliamentary
Parishes
Map 1: Average Distribution of Bristol's voters among
St James
Ch tLon
z
i' s ;c
St Philip
and
Pr cincts St Jacob
St Augustine
St
ichol
S.
Temple
< n_phn
St Marv Redcliffe
Bedrninstcr
0.00-1.99%
All Saints
2
3
Christ Church
St Ewen
4
5
6
St Leonard
St Mary le Port
St Werburgh
2.003.99;,
5.00-9.99",,
10.0020.00% and over
75
Q
M
in 1':rlanicntan
Parishes
among
Shoemaker
voters
Bristol's
Map 2: Average Distribution of
Elections, 1754-1784
,1.
Sclames
Clifton
St Philip
and
St Jacob
.:
St Acu, ti: _
St
St
Tcmple
Stcph n
St Mai), Rcdclifle
Bedminster
0.00-1.99%
All Saints
2
3
Christ Church
St Ewen
4
5
6
St Leonard
St Mary le Port
St Werburgh
2.00-4.99%
5.00-9.99%
10.00-19.99%
20.00% and over
76
Q
W
Parliamentary
in
Parishes
Bristol's
Tailor
3:
Distribution
Average
Map
voters among
of
Elections. 1754-1784
St lames
St `11chael
Ca
Pr cinct
St Philip
and
St Jacob
St Augustine
St
tiichol.
Rle
St
Steph n
Temple
St Mary Rcdcliffe
0.00-1.99"-1,
All Saints
2
Christ Church
3
4
5
6
St Ewen
St Leonard
St Mary le Port
St Werburgh
El
2.004.99
NMI
5.00-9.991,
10.00- 19.99'%.
20.00% and over
77
have
been
for
defined as nonThus,
the
they
this
suburbanparishes'.
study
purposesof
12
artisan parishes. Table 3:2 illustrates the distribution of Bristol voters, shoemakervoters
four
during
the
tailor
these
three
of
years under analysis.
each
and
voters across
sectors
This reveals that shoemakervoters were more likely to live in àrtisan' parishesover time.
Table 3: 2 : The Distribution of the electorate, shoemakers, and tailors between three areas of Bristol,
1754-1784
Area/Year
No. of voters
% of Bristol No. of S
voters
voters
Eastern 1754 1,679
41%
114
Southern
945
23.08%
59
Non-artisan
1,471
35.92%
61
Total 1754
4,095
100%
234
Eastern 1774 1,682
43.14%
138
Southern
944
24.21%
69
Non-artisan
1,273
32.65%
48
Total 1774
3,899
100%
255
Eastern 1781 1,799
45.45%
139
Southern
907
22.92%
72
Non-artisan
1,252
31.63%
46
Total 1781
958
100%
257
,
Eastern 1784 .31,742
44.14%
137
Southern
951
24.09%
72
Non-artisan
1,254
31.77%
53
Total 1784
3,947
100%
262
Source: Bristol Poll Books, 1754,1774,1781, and 1784.
% of S
Bristol vote
48.72%
25.21%
26.07%
100%
54.12%
27.06%
18.82%
100%
54.08%
28.02%
17.9%
100%
52.29%
27.48%
20.23%
100%
No. of T
voters
49
22
48
119
62
16
20
98
58
24
28
110
62
26
31
119
% of T
Bristol vote
41.18%
18.48%
40.34%
100%
63.26%
16.33%
20.41%
100%
52.73%
21.82%
25.45%
100%
52.1%
21.85%
26.05%
100%
Thus,while 74 per centof shoemakers

lived in the easternandsouthernsectorsin 1754,
this had risen to 81 per cent by 1774 and to 80 per cent by 1784. By comparison, only 64
per centof all Bristol's voterslived in theseareasin 1754,a proportionthat hadrisen

slightly to 67 per cent by 1774 and which stood at 68 per cent in both 1781 and 1784. Of
course, one can expect shoemakersto have been more concentratedin àrtisan' areasthan
votersasa whole, sinceshoemakers

constituteda groupthat was exclusivelyàrtisan'
while only 60 per cent of all voters were artisans.This also explains why so few of the
city's shoemakerswere basedin non-artisan areas.In 1774, for example, only 19 per cent
of shoemakerswere basedin non-artisan areas,comparedto 33 per cent of all voters.
The residential distribution of tailors also experiencedchange over time. While only 60 per
cent of tailors resided in àrtisan' areasin 1754, a marked increasehad occurred by 1774
when the figure had risen to 80 per cent. Thereafter, it remained high but settled down to
75 per cent in 1781 and 74 per cent in 1784. Differences between tailors and shoemakers
may have been the result of the importance of the house of call in the former trade and,
related to this, the changing location of such housesof call. Information on the location of
various housesof call (seetable 2:2) seemsto support this. Of the twenty insertions for
housesof call contained therein, ten referred to housesin
non-artisan areas,especially in
78
Christchurch in central Bristol. However, sevenof theseten insertions for housesin nonBy
twelve
before
the
in
1773
that
comparison,
of
year.
or
either
areas
occurred
artisan
houses
1796,
March
to
between
1773
November
eight referred
and
adverts which appeared
in St. Jamesand only four to housesin non-artisanareas.The fact that housesof call were
been
have
linked
1773
St.
James
àrtisan'
in
the
may
well
after
parish of
more concentrated
to the growing proportion of tailors in the easternsector.This hypothesis is further
by
in
1774,
to
in
decline
by
tailors
compared
areas
the
non-artisan
numbersof
strengthened
the levels seenin 1754. In 1754 only one less tailor resided in the non-artisan areas
in
lived
40
tailors
thus,
non-artisan areas.
per cent of
comparedto the easternsector;
However, by 1774, the proportion of tailors basedin non-artisan areashad fallen by 20 per
from
63
had
41
to
by
the
the
cent
risen
per
easternsector
cent, while
proportion claimed
lived
fairly
to
to
they
This
tailors
tends
that
able
to
near
where
were
suggest
per cent.
half-daily
`daily
fact
Indeed,
that
the
a
or
engagement
on
work was gained
obtain work.
basis' in this period, therefore `demandedhousing in proximity to places of potential
13
work'.
The fact that greaterproportions of all three groups were basedin easternareasof the city
is, no doubt, linked to the fact that theseparisheswere growing in this period. While the
3.6
decrease
in
3,947,
1754
fell
from
Bristol
4,095
to
a
of
per
number of
resident voters
for
&
Jacob,
St.
Philip
flourishing.
In
the
example, the number
cent,
easternparisheswere
in
James
St.
increased
by
in
11
the corresponding
the
same
while
per
cent
period,
of voters
increasewas 16 per cent.14In St. Stephennumbers of voters fell by 50 per cent between
1754 and 1784, while in the sameperiod those in Christchurch fell by 35 per cent.'5
Therefore, movementsof shoemakers,and especially of tailors, was part of a broader shift
in Bristol's population away from the central areasand to the easternfringes. This picture
is substantiatedby the views of contemporaries.Thus, for example, Mathews mentions in
the preface to his 1794 Bristol directory that since 1758 `the increaseof houses' in Bristol
`hasbeen without intermission', and he made particular mention of expansion in the
16
easternparishes. By April 1791, Bristol's building boom was such that Felix Farley's
Bristol Journal remarked; `so great is the spirit of building in this city and its environs that
'
7
hear
is
for
houses'.
3000
Overall, the developments
we
ground actually taken
more than
representedin table 3:2 indicate that between 1754 and 1784 there was a growing trend for
greater numbers of shoemakersand tailors to reside in areaspopulated by other artisans.In
other words, men of thesetwo tradeswere more likely to live next to men of a similar
social rank in 1784 than they had in 1754.
79
However,this analysisis limited by the fact poll bookdatadid not differentiatebetween

journeymen and masters.Yet, the distribution of mastersmay have differed from that of
journeymen.Thebestmeansof investigatingthis is to analysetradedirectoriesfor the

period. These only listed mastersand therefore provide a useful comparative sourceto the
poll books. Although trade directories listed streetsof residencerather than parish, these
linked
by
to
cross-referencewith early nineteenth-centuryrate
specific
parishes
were
books.'8 The first trade directory did not appearin Bristol until 1775. However, further
directories issuedin 1785 and 1794permitted comparison over time. The data thus
in
has
been
gathered
again
presented terms of the eastern,southern, and non-artisan sectors
of the city. Table 3:3 illustrates the distribution trends of Bristol's master shoemakersand
tailors.
Table 3: 3 : The distribution of Master shoemakers and tailors

1775-1794
Area/Year
No. of master
% of all master
shoemakers
shoemakers
53.91%
Eastern 1775
62
Southern
20.87%
24
Non-artisan
29
25.22%
Total 1775
115
100%
Eastern 1785
35
57.38%
Southern
11
18.03%
Non-artisan
15
24.59%
Total 1785
61
100%
between three areas of Bristol,

No. of master
tailors
50
13
33
96
40
8
28
% of all master
tailors
52.08%
13.54%
34.38%
100%
52.63%
10.53%
36.84%
76
100%
42
Eastern 1794
28
42.42%
47.19%
Southern
12
I1
16.67%
13.48%
Non-artisan
27
40.91%
35
39.33%
89
Total 1794
66
100%
100%
Sources:Sketchley's Bristol Directory 1775 (1971 reprint); TheBristol Directory (Bristol, 1785); Mthews's
Bristol Directory 1793-4 (Bristol, 1794).
Surprisingly,perhaps,the geographicdistributionacrossthesethreesectorsderivedfrom
the data gatheredfrom the directories does not differ greatly from that revealed by the PB
data.Thus54 per centof masterswerebasedin the easternsectorin 1775,comparedto 54

per cent of all shoemakersin 1774. In 1785,57 per cent of masterswere basedhere
comparedto 52 per cent of shoemakerslisted in poll books in 1784. However, fewer
master shoemakerswere basedin the southern sector in both 1775 and 1785 comparedto
the PB data for 1774 and 1784. By contrast, more master shoemakerswere basedin the
non-artisan sector comparedto shoemakerslisted in the PB data. While 25 per cent of
masterswere basedin these areasin 1775 and 1785, only 19 per cent and 20 per cent of
shoemakerslisted in the poll books were basedthere in 1774 and 1784. It is perhaps
surprising that master shoemakerswere more evenly distributed acrossthe city, given their
need to find a client base.After all, as Hobsbawm and Scott state, all members of the
19
community required the skills of the shoemaker. It is particularly surprising that only 25
80
in
1775
1785.
Given
in
based
areas
and
non-artisan
per cent of master shoemakerswere
that the central areasof Bristol containedmany of the most important trading and shopping
districts, such as Wine Street in the parish of Christchurch which was a `fashionable
20
demarcation
figures
in
These
to
this
a
within the
reflect
appear
period.
shopping area'
in
1775
1785
Thus,
three-quarters
the
themselves.
of
masters
and
while
of
masters
ranks
in
based
based
in
the richer areasof central and
the
were
artisan sectors,one-quarterwere
western Bristol.
These figures reflect a pattern describedby Rule with regardsto shoemakingand tailoring
in London. Rule contraststhe richer parts of the trade able to afford rented premisesin
`respectableareas' of the city with the `hundredsof small independentshoemakers'who
21
in
been
Here,
have
Bristol.
in
based
`garrets'
This
the
to
replicated
appears
small
were
in
majority of mastersoperated àrtisan' areasand presumably cateredto the needsof the
in
based
therein,
non-artisan areascatered
masters
while
socio-economic groups contained
to groups of a higher social status.Table 3:3 indicates that in the long term masterswho
in
based
in
than
those
to
the
could afford operate
non-artisan areaswere more successful
the easternsector. Thus, between 1775 and 1785 the number of master shoemakersfell
from 115 to 61, a decreaseof 47 per cent, at the sametime as the number of shoemaker
in
increased
figures
indicate
from
255
262.
These
the trade
to
that
marked
changes
voters
for
labour
in
demand
data
indicates
for
PB
the
that
the
were particularly affecting masters,
the shoemakingtrade was not in decline. This picture suggeststhat poorer mastersbasedin
the easternand southern sectorswere being squeezedover the period. As a result, while
there were 62 mastersin the easternsector in 1775, this number had fallen to 35 by 1785
just
in
just
42 per cent of all
in
28
1794.
By
this
time
to
this
area represented
and
masters
masters.By contrast mastersin non-artisan areasrepresenteda consistent 25 per cent of the
total. Thus, while 29 mastersoperatedin this area in 1775 only fell to 27 by 1795,by
which time mastersin theseareasconstituted 41 per cent of the city's total. Therefore,
while the number of masterswas falling in absolute terms, the numbers in the non-artisan
sector were holding up and by 1794 had increasedin terms of the proportion of all masters.
This may have been due to the demandscreatedby the American War (1775-83), which,
while ensuring that the shoemakingtrade as a whole was kept busy with orders, may have
benefited richer mastersbasedin the central areasmore than the smaller masters.In April
1784, for example, the wholesaling firm of Bence and Lock, situated in Wine-street in the
2
Christchurch,
have
`Five
Hundred
Men
Work'.
to
central shopping areaof
were said
at
The war may, therefore, have given businessesable to meet large orders a real boost, and
may have contributed to the processwhereby many journeymen were producing ready81
have
for
This
the
trade.
undoubtedly have had the
made shoes
warehouse
processwould
effectof squeezingmanysmallerandperhapsforcedsomeof themout of business.

By contrast the figures for tailors in table 3:3 showed less fluctuations over time and this
may well have been a product of the fact that ready-madeproduction did not predominate
in the tailoring trade to the extent that it did in shoemaking.Thus, tailoring may not have
been so affected by the American War as shoemaking.One possible result of this was that
the market for tailors' wares was more stable than that in shoemakingin this period.
Despite this, changeswere evident. Thus, the non-artisan area accountedfor 34 per cent of
in
in
1775,37
masters
per cent 1785and 39 per cent by 1794. This highlights the
importance of renting in prosperousareas,as well as the fact that mastersable to operatein
these areaswere more successful.Thus, while the number of mastersfell from 96 in 1775
to 76 in 1785, a decreaseof 21 per cent, the actual sharetaken by the non-artisan sector
increasedfrom 34 per cent to 37 per cent. However, the easternsector representedthe
market that the majority of masters(52%) cateredto in both 1775 and 1785, and even as
late as 1794 a healthy 47 per cent of mastertailors cateredto this market.
The story for both trades suggeststhat over this period there the proportion of mastersin
the artisan sectorsdeclined and simultaneously increasedin the non-artisan sectorsof the
city where wealthier customersresided. Thus, Baigent describesClifton, St. Augustine,
and St. Michael as `genteelsuburbanparishes' possessing`notable concentrationsof the
23
in
high
those
gentry, professional men and
statusemployments'. The `central areas' are
describedby Baigent as `wealthy trading parishesthat incorporated `high numbersof
24
professional men'. It is, therefore, unsurprising that mastersshould have targetedthis
clientele, and there is evidencethat mastertailors were particularly disposedto making the
most of these connections.Thus, for example,the tailoring firm of Moran, Burnell, and
Morgan, basednear `QUEEN-SQUARE', particularly thanked `the Ladies and Gentlemen
of Bristol, Hot-Wells and Clifton' for their custom in April 1796.25Likewise, tailor Robert
Tripp, basedat the `QUAY' and thus also near Clifton, boastedthat he had received
custom from `the first Nobility and Gentlemen's Families' in November 1800.26This type
of evidence suggeststhat the importance of geography was of more pertinence to masters
than journeymen.
DENSITY
While distributiontrendsinform our understandingof the mannerin which the shoemaking

andtailoring tradeswerespreadacrossthe city, densitylevelsaid our knowledgeof the
82
levels
Knowledge
in
density
Bristol.
the
these
trades
three
can,
of
weight
carried
areasof
therefore, aid our understandingof the economic importance of each trade in the different
in
later
because
information
density
Bristol.
This
the
thesis
useful
areasof
will also prove
levels assistour understandingof strikes and election activities. Table 3:4 displays the
density levels of eachtrade within the electorateacrossthe eastern,southern and nondensity
in
levels of the
The
1754,1774,1781,
Bristol
1784.
artisan sectorsof
and
shoemakingtrade revealsthat they were largely located within a predominantly artisanal
milieu. Thus, shoemakersin non-artisanareasnever constituted more than 4 per cent of the
electorate in that area,while in the easternand southernsectorsthey made up between 7
and 8 per cent of the voting populace.If the data contained in the poll books was
representativeof the entire population then shoemakingrepresenteda major factor in
Bristol's trade. Shoemakersconstituted around 6.5 per cent of all voters in 1774,1781, and
1784. Given Baigent's conclusion that 60 per cent of voters were artisans, it is possible to
conclude that shoemakersaccountedfor over 10 per cent of the artisanal electorate.
Table 3: 4 : Shoemakers and Tailors as a proportion of the Bristol-resident electorate, 1754-1784
114
59
61
234
138
69
48
255
139
72
46
257
137
72
% of voters in
parish
6.8%
6.2%
4.1%
5.7%
8.2%
7.3%
3.8%
6.5%
7.7%
7.9%
3.7%
6.5%
7.9%
7.6%
49
22
48
119
62
16
20
98
58
24
28
110
62
26
% of voters in
arish
2.9%
2.3%
3.3%
2.9%
3.7%
1.7%
1.6%
2.5%
3.2%
2.6%
2.2%
2.8%
3.6%
2.7%
1,254
53
4.2%
31
2.5%
3,947
262
6.6%
119
3%
Area
No. of Voters
No. of S Voters
Eastern 1754
Southern
Non-artisan
Total 1754
Eastern 1774
Southern
Non-artisan
Total 1774
Eastern 1781
Southern
Non-artisan
Total 1781
Eastern 1784
Southern
1,679
945
1,471
4,095
1,682
944
1,273
3,899
1,799
907
1,252
3 958
1,742
951
Non-artisan
Total 1784
No. of T Voters
Source:Bristol Poll Books,1754,1774,1781,and 1784.
Density levels among the tailors reveal that they were a proportionally less significant
group in Bristol than shoemakers.Thus, tailors accounted for between 2.5 and 3 per cent of
all voters. However, their numbers did represent5 per cent of the artisanal electorate,
suggestingthat they were by no meansinsignificant. Changing density levels between
1754 and 1774 in the easternand non-artisan sectorsagain reinforce changing
patterns
brought about by the relocation of the housesof call network. While tailors
constituted 3.3
per centof all votersin non-artisanareasin 1754this had fallen to 1.6per centby 1774.At
the sametime, densitylevelsin the easternsectorrosefrom 2.9 per cent in 1754to 3.7 per
83
levels
in
in
density
less
1774.
That
the
these
parishes
were
of
more
or
eastern
cent
maintained in 1781 and 1784 suggeststhat the gravitation of tailors to theseparts of the
city was not merely a temporary phenomenon.
Unfortunately, due to the absenceof researchin this area,it is difficult to comparethe
density levels for shoemakingand tailoring in Bristol with that of other urban centresin
this period. Nevertheless,one study provides a useful comparison.This is an assessmentof
Westminster,
franchise
for
In
Westminster
1784.
tailors and
the
occupationswithin
franchise
4.9
4.8
that was
constituted
shoemakers
and
per cent respectively of a
importantly basedsolely on `male householdersassessedto pay rates'.27Unlike the Bristol
franchise the Westminster electoratewas unlikely to have included any journeymen,
meaning that the actual density of shoemakersand tailors in Westminster was likely to
have been far higher than that in Bristol.
HOUSING
Knowledge of the distribution of shoemakersand tailors acrossthe city can help our
understandingof the types of housessuch artisanswould have inhabited. The types of
dwellings that shoemakerslived and worked in can be gaugedby consulting the many
shoemakerautobiographies,as well as by examining a range of other evidence such as
crime reports. The questionsto be askedare whether living and working spacewere one
and the same,and what differences there were between the respective living quartersof
journeymen and mastersand betweensingle and married men.
The classic account of the lives of single young artisans,in the `garrets', largely arises
from autobiographical accountsbasedon experiencesin the London shoemaking trade.
While one cannot assumethat London experienceswere simply replicated in Bristol, it is
neverthelessworth detailing this evidence to comparewith albeit less explicit evidence
from Bristol itself. George Bloomfield was a London journeyman who sometime during
the 1790stook his younger brother Robert, later to become famous for his poetry, from
rural Suffolk to London to teach him the shoemakingtrade. Writing in 1800, George
Bloomfield statedthat it was `customary in such housesas let to poor people in London to
have light garrets fit for mechanicsto work in'. 28The `garret' used by the Bloomfield's
was sharedby five men in total. They lived, worked and slept in this spaceeven though the
29
`two
beds'.
turn-up
Even by the standardsof the day this was less
room only contained
than ideal and George Bloomfield describedlife in the garret as `far from being clean and
3
snug'. John Brown's experiencesin the capital in the early years of the nineteenth
84
Brown
in
lodgings
trade.
the
told
the
shoemaking
multi-purpose use of
of
century also
found a grocer's shop which offered `lodgings for single men', and here he shareda room
being
`shop,
This
a
parlour and
purposes
multiple
room served
with another shoemaker.
day
`turned
in
bed
to give us
describes
how
Brown
the
the
was
up
sleeping apartment', and
31
do
Such
to
arrangementswere apparently not unusual.
our
work.
move
about
and
room
Thus, Brown mentioned another lodgings where he shareda `garret' with another
high
`stand
`barely
feet
by
to
`nine
The
enough'
was
six' and
shoemaker.
room was only
bedstead',
German
`small
drawbacks
it
`turn-up
in'.
Despite
these
a
contained a
upright
`two
had
for
`flat
`cupboard'
top'
surface,
that
and
working
use as a
a
stove', a
32
had
for
London's
to
therefore
that
shoemakers
working.
were used
shoemaker's seats'
make the best of crampedconditions.
Of course, as Henry Winks, a nineteenth-centuryscholar of the trade, has observedthe
bedroom'
both
`served
journeymen
`garret'
for
that
to
as
workshop
and
sharea
propensity
33
Johnson
defined
it
lessened
burden
due
fact
largely
`the
the
that
to
the
of
rent'.
was
34
however,
house'.
In
highest
floor
literally
à room on the
`garret' as
the
many cases,
of
this was not literally so. Rather, the idea of shoemakersoccupying a `garret' has in many
in
lived
become
for
term
that
cramped conditions.
saying
shoemakers
a shorthand
ways
Nineteenth-century writers attachedto the trade, at times, almost romanticised the life of
the shoemakerin his `garret'. Thus, Robert Bloomfield described his work as `garret
poetry', while JamesDevlin began his treatise on the trade by lamenting that the
35
has
òccupation of the garret
no attraction to the proprietor of the parlour'. Of course,
Bloomfield's writing would have had less appealif it had been called `cramped-room
poetry', thus reflecting the way in which `garret' had become a shorthandterm for
crampedconditions in general.
This was particularly the casewith regardsto nineteenth-century accountsthat were based
largely on London experiences.By comparison, the Bristol experienceillustrated examples
of sharedlodgings that were rarely referred to as `garrets'. Indeed, the only evidenceof the
use of garrets in Bristol in this period comes in April 1776 when John Antrobus, a Bristol
`clogmaker', gave evidence at Bristol Quarter Sessionsagainst JosephTownshend for
36
his
`Garrett
(sic)'
to conceal stolen goods. However, absenceof the term `garret'
using
did not mean that Bristol's shoemakersinhabited salubrious dwellings by comparison to
their London counterparts.Rather, the picture in Bristol was largely one of shared
lodgings. In the early 1770s,for example, JamesLackington shared lodgings with fellow
shoemakersJohn Jonesand his brother in both St. Philip and Castle Precincts, both of
85
37
described
his
lodging
in
in
Lackington
Bristol.
àrtisan
the
sector'
which were
eastern
decent
in
in
à
Castle-street,
Castle
Precincts,
the
much
more
as
residence
room
parish of
38
lot
than commonly falls to the
of journeymen shoemakers'. However, this comment
implies that Lackington hadjust struck lucky. Perhapsthis compensatedfor his earlier
in
lived
'overin
he
had
Jones
St.
Philip
that
and
worked
a
room
experiences
where and
looked the Church-Yard' with a view dominatedby the `frequency of newly-opened
9
graves'.
Shoemakingbrothers Josephand Henry Bayly describedtheir living quartersas `lodgings
in Lewins Mead', a road situated in the easternàrtisan' parish of St. James.Their
Bristol
1784
in
October
Quarter Sessions,
from
testimonies,
their
at
given
statementarose
into the murder of RebeccaBuller, a fellow lodger who had lived in a nearby room. Their
evidence further illustrates the close proximity in which lodgers lived; Buller had time to
died,
bloody
before
Baylys'
ìn
the
a
she
and the brothers were able
enter
condition'
room
ao
before
he
to apprehendthe attacker
could escape
By contrast with the experienceof single journeymen, the living and working
arrangementsof married journeymen was rather more varied. Marriage tended to
encouragea greater level of home comfort, including furnished quarters,as well as a
greater likelihood of a separationbetween home and work. When JamesLackington
married his wife in Bristol in the early 1770s,for example, the newly-weds moved into
`ready-furnished lodgings' at a chargeof `half-a-crown per week'. 1Evidence from court
records reveals that somemarried journeymen lodged in rooms above public houses.In
March 1776, for instance, evidence given at the GloucestershireAssizes revealed that
William West and JamesTowling, both shoemakers,occupied separatelodgings with their
2
òn
house
in
Floor'
'The
Lamb'
St.
Philip
Jacob.
Giving
the same
wives
of
public
and
evidenceto the court in the trial of West, for the murder of his wife Mary, Towling stated
that the two couples usually breakfastedtogether even though they had only known each
3
for
àbout
ten weeks'. In March 1786 Charles Allen, a shoemaker,mentioned in
other
court testimony that he rented 'a Room', which he sharedwith his wife, at a public house
44
`Three
Cups'
in
Temple
Street
in
the
Temple.
the artisan parish of
called
While Lackingtonandhis wife both workedat the tradein their lodgings,somemarried

journeymenwere ableto separatetheir workplacefrom their home.SThus,JamesTowling
testifiedthat on the day Westhadallegedlymurderedhis wife, the two men `wentafter
breakfasttogether'to work andleft their wives àt home'.46It is likely that Towling
meant
86
by this that he and West had a room elsewhereto work, perhapssharedwith other
journeymen, rather than working on the premisesof an employer. This seemsto have been
the practice of at least some other shoemakers.Thus, for example, after Robert Bloomfield
had married in the late 1790sin London, he neverthelessshareda `garret' elsewherewith
`six or sevenother workmen' for his daily work.47This type of evidence illustrates that
some married journeymen shoemakerswished to keep their working and living quarters
separate,especially in caseswhere a wife did not assisther husband's work. However,
qualitative evidencesuggeststhat the separationof home from work was not always
possible. Thus, the living conditions of married journeymen with children were often very
cramped. In October 1772, for example, GeorgeBrowning was faced with arrestby a night
watchman as he `swore he would kill the first man which enteredhis room', suggesting
that he occupied a single room. This single room dwelling was located in St. Mary
Redcliff, an artisan parish in the southernpart of the city, and was sharedwith a wife and
at least two children; the report mentioned that `his wife was sitting by the fire feeding her
48
youngest child'. Crampedliving spacewas again highlighted during the trial of Jenkins, a
Bristol shoemaker,for the murder of his wife in May 1785.The report of the crime noted
that Jenkins's wife had been ìn bed with her four little ones' with a board `fixed in the side
of the bed to keep the children from falling out', suggestingthat bedding and spacewere at
49
a premium. Naturally, the larger families were the more cramped conditions became.If
the claims of journeymen made during strikes were to be believed, many families were
indeed large. In May 1777, for example, Bristol's journeymen shoemakersclaimed that
50
had
for
five
`Wife
them
Children'.
to
Similarly, in May
many of
provide
a
and
or seven
1773,journeymen tailors claimed that it ìs often the Case' that they neededto support à
Wife and 4 or 5 Children'. 51The journeymen therefore claimed that it was not unusual to
have householdsthat ranged in size between six and nine individuals.
Such claims can be verified by recourseto quantitative evidence compiled by
contemporaries.In 1781, for example, JamesNew, vicar of St. Philip and Jacob, calculated
the numbers of people per dwelling in his parish. Table 3:5 presentsthis data in terms of
dwellings rather than `houses'. This was a classification that New himself stipulated
becausemany properties were divided into rooms for lodging. New's account 1,577
of
`houses' seemsrather too high considering that in 1751 only 363 houseshad been
rated for
the land tax in that parish. Given that approximately 25 per cent of houseswere
exempt
from this tax for various reasons,this suggeststhere were 453 housesin St. Philip in 1751.
Yet, according to New's figures the number of housesin St. Philip had increasedby 1,124,
or 248 per cent, while the entire Bristol population only increasedby 26 per cent, from 43,
87
275 to 53,677, during the half century from 1751to 1801.52It therefore seemsmost likely
households
inhabiting
individual
New's
that
calculations were more concernedwith
lodging
dwellings,
room.
that
merely
a
or
was an entire property
whether
separate
Table 3:5 presentsthe material drawn from JamesNew's survey. On the basis of this
in
household
St.
Philip,
it
an
the
that
per
of
people
averagenumber
evidence, seems
journeymen
the
This
that
were not
suggests
artisanal parish, was approximately six.
further
by
is
finding
family
the
This
in
corroborated
their
size.
of
estimate
exaggerating
in
(See
in
for
1775
by
Sketchley
streets
various
parishes.
of
a number
calculations made
household
5.7.
6).
Sketchley's
3:
of
people
per
of
table
survey reveals an averagenumber
Table 3: 5 James New's calculation of people per dwelling in St. Philip & Jacob, 1781
Average per Dwelling
No. of People
No. of Dwellings
Street
5.7
1,002
177
Old Market
5.8
502
87
Cares lane
6.5
1,364
209
Church Lane
6.2
6,898
1,104
Other Streets
6.2
9,766
1,577
Total
Source: JamesNew, An Account of the Houses and Inhabitants of the Parish of St. Philip & Jacob in the City
of Bristol (Bristol, 1781). B.R.L. B33284.
This was close to the national average:in 1801 the national averagestood at 5.6 `persons
53
figures
to
both
Sketchley's
house'.
However,
the
average
relate
appear
national
and
per
to independenthouseholds,rather than entire houses.Thus, Rodger accountsfor the fact
that the averageper houseremained `static at 5.6 between 1801 and 1831' by pointing to
54
the `subdivision of existing properties'. The quality of a `house' could, therefore, differ
becoming
housing
for
Figures
Bristol
that
was
moreof a
suggest overcrowded
markedly.
John
According
Browning's
in
by
late
Bristol.
to
the
the
city
eighteenth
problem
century
by
dwellings
6,082
in
`houses'
in
Gentleman's
1754;
Magazine
the
or
were
shared
article
"
household.
Table 3:6
43,275 Bristolians. This suggestsan averagesevenpeople per
indicatesthat therewereonly 5.7peopleper householdin 1775,while table3:5 reveals

that in St. Philip therewere6.2 peopleper householdin 1781.Superficially,then,it would
appearthat cramped conditions were being easedat the sametime as the population
56
increasedfrom 43,000in 1754to 55,000in 1775
However,thereis no quantitativeevidenceto evaluatewhetherthe housingneedsof this

rising population were met by a similar increasein new housing. Nevertheless,qualitative
evidence suggeststhat the new demandswere met by the subdivision of existing
properties,the sameprocessthat hadkept the nationalaverageper housesuperficiallylow.

IndeedJamesNew, explainedhow this processhadoccurredin the parishof Temple,by
88
Table 3: 6 Sketchley's calculations of people per house in Bristol, 1775

Street/Parish
No. of Houses
21
St. James'sbarton - St. James
7
Barton-allcy - St. James
28
St. James - Average
51
Queens-square- St. Nicholas
38
King-street - St. Nicholas
38
Bristol-back - St. Nicholas
45
Back-street- St. Nicholas
52
Baldwin-street -St. Nicholas
224
St. Nicholas - Average
37
Tower-lane - Christchurch
29
Pithay - Christchurch
66
Christchurch - Average
40
Maryport-street - St. Peter
21
Peter-street- St. Peter
61
St. Peter -Average
47
Marsh-street- St. Stephen
29
Clare-street- St. Stephen
76
St. Stephen -Average
18
Counter-slip - Temple
160
Temple-street- Temple
27
Temple-back - Temple
205
Temple -Average
37
Tucker-street - St. Thomas
697
Total
Source: Sketchley'sBristol Directory 1775 (1971 reprint), p. 120.
No. of
people
133
25
158
342
296
240
302
294
1,474
95
134
229
180
94
274
282
103
385
102
990
144
1,236
227
3,983
Average per
House
6.3
3.6
5.6
6.7
7.8
6.3
6.7
5.7
6.6
2.6
4.6
3.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
6
3.6
5.1
5.7
6.2
5.3
6
6.1
5.7
1781 an artisan parish. New explained that Temple possessed`some of the largest houses
in the City' which used to contain one family each of `5 or 6 persons'. When thesefamilies
left, èachroom in a housebecamea separatetenement' with the result that the housesnow
57
before
`from
Cannington,
20
Richard
30'
In
1786,
to
giving
contain
evidence
a
people.
Houseof Lords's enquiryinto the proprietyof wideningaccessto Bristol Bridge,claimed

that in Temple Street itself `the Housesare large' and `chiefly inhabited by poor People,to
58
let
in
Lodgings'.
whom they are out
Picturesprovidean additionalsourceof informationaboutartisanalhousingin Bristol in

this period.The typesof buildingsthat shoemakers
andtailors inhabitedcanbe seenin
contemporary paintings of housesin the areasin which shoemakerswere most
concentrated.Picture 1, for instance,portrays the backs of housesoverlooking the River
Frome at St. JamesBack in the àrtisan' parish of St. Jamesin 1820. This picture has been
describedby a recent writer as a `typical image of the ramshackle housing
in the area',
....
and looking at the many storeysof buildings, one can imagine shoemakersrenting out the
59
in
depicted
far
the
top-right
roof-top attic rooms
and top-left of the picture. Given the
generally poor quality accommodationon offer to many journeymen, such rooms were not
necessarilycheap.The costsof maintaininga propertyfor the marriedjourneymenwas of

89
O'Neill
lugh
(1820)
Back'
Picture 1: `St James's
-1
204)1),
(Bristol,
City
I
in
N20-30
The
before
Camera:
Bristol
S.
Stoddard,
the
Reproduced from
Bristol Museums & Art Gallery.
kind
of
the
permission
with
Picture 2: `The bottom of High Street'(1826) - Thomas L Rowbotham

Reproduced from S. Stoddard, Bristol bf we the Camera: The city in 1820-30 (Bristol, 2(H)I),
with the kind permission of Bristol Museums & Art Gallery.
90
just
dwellings
of
a single room. Thus, in
major concern, even although
often consisted
1792,journeymen boot-makersmentioned,in the courseof a wage claim, that `the
dearnessof house-rent' was a key concern.60Indeed, the most evident material difference
between the standardof living of journeymen and masters,as well as betweenpoor and
rich masters,lay in the ability of the latter to afford better working premises,
accommodation,and material possessions.
Property costs were a key concern for masters.John Rees,for example, the Bristol master
shoemaker,warned the `young cutter' thinking of setting up as a `master' to be aware of
61
ènormous'
`house
the
cost of
rent and taxes'. Campbell mentioned that shoemakersand
tailors required between 100 and 500, in order to set themselvesup in business.One can,
therefore, imagine that besidesfunds for stock, wages and credit, money for a property
62
insignificant
fund.
Such amountswould suggest,given the level
took up a not
part of this
of journeymen's wages, that social mobility was becoming restricted in this period. During
the 1770s,for example,the averagewagesof journeymen tailors in Bristol were thirteen
shillings per week. It would, therefore, take almost three years for tailors to earn a hundred
pounds, the lowest amount Campbell felt was necessary,and almost fifteen years to earn
63
limit
five
hundred
the upper
of
pounds. Few journeymen could therefore save enough to
ever becomemasters.This has led Rule to claim that in both the tailoring and shoemaking
trades the `cost of renting and maintaining premisesin respectableareas' was a significant
factor restricting journeymen from `becoming independentat other than the poor end of the
64
trade'. The fact that the `parish mean rateablevalue', basedupon the valuation of
for
taxes, was below the `city mean' in every àrtisan' parish except for Castle
properties
Precincts and St. Philip, suggeststhat Bristol mastersbasedin these areaswere not
65
the
top end of the market. Property expenses,therefore, largely explains both
operating at
why London possessed`hundredsof small independentshoemakers'who worked in
`traditional garrets', and why only a minority of Bristol's master shoemakersand tailors
66
based
in
the
were ever
non-artisan sector. Although they had left the ranks of
journeymen, the gap between such `masters' andjourneymen was limited and thesewere
hardly `masters' in the senseof being large employers of labour. Indeed the decline in the
number of master shoemakersbetween 1775 and 1785, (see table 3:3), may reflect the fact
that poorer mastershad sunk back into the ranks of the journeymen. Thus, because
absolute numbers of shoemakersdid not decline, the ratio betweenjourneymen and
mastersbecamegreater in favour of the former over time. The precarious position of
masterswho set themselvesup in businesswith limited capital, was alluded to by Samuel
Drew, a Cornish shoemaker.Drew mentioned that upon starting the businessin the late
91
he
had
because
`no
he
had
`rigid
to
meansof
economy'
adhered a
eighteenth century
67
by
is
It
himself
he
journeyman'
the
to
customers.
not
was
paid
until
paying wages a
difficult to understandhow men in this situation could easily regressto the ranks of the
journeymen.
Given the pressureson accommodationin the city, being able to rent an entire property that
different
led
had
This
be
to
`shop'
that
one
arrived as a master.
used as a
was a sign
could
high
`rent
Rees
John
journeymen.
Thus,
for
the
complained
of
while
problems
mastersand
in
journeymen
larger
taxes'
shoemakers
complained
premises,
and
associatedwith renting
1792 only about high 'house-rent'.68Thus taxes and rates only applied to rents on higher7
`houses
late
Bristol
the
In
under
value
of
p.a. and
eighteenth-century
valued properties.
b9
`many
Acts'
As a result, when
'
`from
10
tenementsunder
rates' under
p.a. were exempt
the Lackingtons were paying a weekly rent of `half a crown' in the early 1770s,amounting
to an annual amount of six pounds and ten shillings, they were well below the exemption
70
house.
because
did
By contrast,
10
for
they
not occupy an entire
rate of
a `tenement',
in
(sic)'
in
CORN-STREET
`HOUSE
Abraham
Ore,
a
shoemaker,
vacated
when
master
1769 it was advertised for re-letting at a rate of thirty-five pounds per year, equating to
7'
five
half
Ore
therefore
times
approximately thirteen and a
week.
paid
over
shillings per
for
house
for
had
Ore's
his
Lackingtons'
their
than
the
single
room.
more
premises
was
therefore well beyond the exemption bands for rates and taxes. His property in Corn Street
was basedin the `wealthy trading parish' of St. Werburgh, thus highlighting the better
properties that some mastershad accessto.
Visual evidence tends to substantiatethe differentiation between better-off mastersand
journeymen. Picture 2 shows a smart-looking shoemaker'sshop in High Street, within the
central parish of St. Nicholas andjust a short walk from the fashionable shopping area of
Wine Street. This sceneis far removed from the scruffy dwelling housesin the artisan
parish of St. Jamesrepresentedin picture 1. In London some large masterswere evidently
able to acquire a comfortable separationbetween home and business.Thus Brown
describedone of his employers, for example, as arriving at the shop in London `from his
72
house'.
However, these arrangementsreflected the living standardsof only a
country
very small minority of wealthier masters.A more common experience was that of the
Lackington's who, when in London, acquired a `shop and parlour' to set up in business,
73
lived
the
and
on
samepremisesas the shop.
92
Masters in Bristol appearto have had living quartersand businesspremiseswhich were

generally next to eachother. Thus, when Andrew Foley, a master tailor from St. Stephen,
quit his tailoring businessin 1791 the `Houseand Shop' situated `nearly opposite the DialSlip in the Quay' was `to be let'. 4 This suggeststhat Foley's businesspremisesand living
quarterswere close together. Likewise, when Hannah Phillips, widow of another master
tailor from St. StephennamedJamesPhillips, continued with her husband's tailoring
businessin 1773 this was advertisedas being àt their House in PRINCE'S-STREET
(sic)'. 75The sub-text of some adverts placed by mastersclearly hinted at a rise in their
prosperity. Such an impression is unmistakable from that placed by Edward Evans, a St.
Jamesshoemaker,in 1774. Evans was clearly moving into more comfortable and bigger
premiseswhen informing customersthat he had moved `from his late Dwelling House' on
the `Corner of Old King-street' to a `more commodious one' in `the Horse Fair'. 76This
suggeststhat an eighteenth-centuryproperty ladder existed, at least as far as masterswere
concerned,and that one clearly looked to rent superior premiseswhen this was affordable.
Indeed masters,unlike journeymen, were able to make more out of their properties due to
the fact that they could afford larger properties with opportunities for generating further
income. Thus, some masterssub-let parts of their premises in order to recoup some of their
own property costs.Among shoemakingconcerns,for example, Davis and Company
advertised in 1778 that they had à convenient First Floor to Let', while Samuel Thompson
in 1780 had a `First and SecondFloor with a Garret' and `the Use of a Kitchen' that was
`to be Lett(sic)'. " The nature of the property depicted in picture 2 presumably leant itself
to either of the scenariosoutlined above, allowing the master to live close to his place of
work, and even to sub-let floors which he did not need. Similar opportunities were also
open to Bristol's master tailors. In 1780, for example, Henry Richards acquired a `House'
to engagein the tailoring businessand advertisedthat there was a `genteel Apartment to
lett (sic)', and, in 1771, JaneBadger, widow of a master tailor, in 1771 offered `Lodging
78
Boarding'
income.
her
to supplement
and
Further differences between more prosperousmastersand journeymen were createdby the
greater accessto material possessionswhich some establishedmastersenjoyed, and the
resulting more comfortable stateof their homes. Thus Stephenagg, master shoemaker,
could afford to run a horse and carriage. When he died in 1776 a `neat POST-CHAISE
(sic)' and à Pair of black GELDINGS' were offered for sale.79Bagg had lived in the
poor
artisan parish of St. Mary Redcliff, suggestingthat wealthy men did not just reside in the
central and western areasof the city. Indeed, according to Baigent rich and poor lived in all
parishes,and even parishes such as `St Mary Redcliff' had `their wealthy residents'.8
93
Other evidencealso suggeststhat somemastershad a wide range of material possessions.

Thus, William Edwards, testified in 1785 that `severalpiecesof china such as coffee cups,
in
dishes'
been
his
house
in
Clare
Street'
had
`stolen
from
the wealthy trading
plates and
8'
least
St.
Stephen,
thirty shillings. In October 1797
parish of
and that they were worth at
the bankruptcy of Joel Stuckey, a master shoemakerfrom St. Mary Redcliff, illustrated
both the precarious nature of the trade, as well as the range of material possessionsthat
master shoemakersmight accumulate.An advertisedauction of his household effects
included `feather and millpuff beds', a `mahoganybureau', a `chest of drawers', several
sets of chairs and tables as well as `looking glasses'and some àrticles of silver plate and a
82
kitchen
furniture'.
A wider survey of the possessionsthat
quantity of exceedinggood
some tradesmenobtained might have been found in probate inventories. Unfortunately,
they do not exist for our period since Ènglish inventories more or less ceaseafter the
1730s'.83Nevertheless,even in the absenceof such inventories, the available evidence
indicates that the richest mastersenjoyed a material existencethat was far more
comfortable than journeymen could expect. Having said this, it should be rememberedthat
many masterswho operatedat the poor end of the trade experiencedsimilar living
conditions to journeymen.
OCCUPATIONAL
HEALTH, WORKING HOURS & ILLNESS
While there were many diseasesand health hazardsin late eighteenth-centurysociety that
could affect either the physical or financial well being of shoemakersand tailors, four
occupational factors conspired to particularly influence the health of workers in these
trades. Firstly, shoemakingwas felt to attract those less capable of more demanding
physical work. Indeed, the sedentarynature of the work meant that small, weak, or even
handicappedboys were often put to this trade.84Campbell, writing in the mid-eighteenth
85
`does
Strength'
that
William Gifford,
century, claimed
shoemaking
not require much
.
later known for his literary prowess,was apprenticedto a Devon shoemakerby his
godfather only after he had been sent to the `plough' and found to be 'too weak for such
heavy work'. 86Robert Bloomfield was sent to his brother George in London to learn
shoemaking in 1781 becauseit was felt he was too `small and weakly' to be able `to obtain
his living by hard out-door labour' as he had been doing as a farm-boy in Suffolk. 87A
similar pattern existed in the tailoring trade where it was popularly believed that à Boy of
a sickly weak Constitution is fittest for a Taylor (sic)'. Weaker boys were therefore often
apprenticedto this trade since tailoring did not require a `robust Body or much muscular
Strength'.88Thus, some men already had potential health
problems when they entered
thesetrades.
94
Secondly, the sedentarynature of the employment createdits own problems. Prothero

diseases
both
to
tailors
such as
occupational
that
were prone
shoemakersand
notes
89
due
`fistula', a form of ulcer that arose
to their sedentarywork. Bernardino Ramazzini's
illustrate
'cobblers
both
the
highlighted
tailors'
to
1713
and
treatise
specifically
of
medical
largely
diseases'.
These
`sedentary
their
a result of them
were
workers and
nature of
keeping a continually `bent posture' as if they were `looking for something on the ground',
90
Ramazzini
like
became
`round-shouldered
the
that
they
even
monkeys'.
result
with
limping
`stooping,
that
the
men' witnessed on the
round-shouldered,
amount of
posited
`feast-days' of the shoemakingand tailors' guilds, meant that it looked like such
91
infirmities'
Tailors were
individuals were `carefully selected' as an èxhibition of these
òne
lameness
legs,
`numbness
they
to
the
and
sciatica'
since
sat
with
of
particularly prone
92
back
Campbell
legs
that
tailors'
thigh'.
the
the
working position of
argued
also
against
of
93
health.
An
`sitting cross-legged' and àlways in one Posture' adversely affected their
he
for
dinner
that
Ambassador'
`Turkish
the
mentioned
receiving
adopted
ritual a
article on
4
fashion
`liable
in
Sitting
in
to
`cross-legged
this
tailors
tailor'.
the
made
manner of a
sat
Coughs and Consumptionsmore than any other Trade I know', and Campbell went on to
95
(sic)'
Pictures 3 and 4 illustrate
lament that `you rarely seea Taylor live to a great Age
the sitting positions at work of journeyman shoemakersand tailors respectively. The crosslegged position of the tailor in picture 4 can be comparedto the sitting position of the
like
in
looks
in
3.
While
a
comfortable
which to
posture
shoemaker picture
neither position
96
hours
down
Nevertheless
looks
decidedly
tailor
the
the
sitting
worse.
of
work,
position of
to work, whatever the position, resulted in poor digestion and circulation and Lavater, a
Zurich `physiognomist', commentedon the `sallow complexions' of Swiss shoemakersin
7
the eighteenth century.
Thirdly, long hours of work, often in bad light further exacerbatedhealth problems. So
extensivewas this problem that an epitaph to a shoemakerincluded the lines: Ànd then,
98
dimHis
when almost eighty-four,
eyes grew
could work no more'. Retirement was
unrealistic for most journeymen, and fading eyesight was a main factor in ending the
working lives of those who lived to old age. Campbell mentions that a tailor òught to have
a strong sharp Sight' given that his eyes are 'much tryed by working at Candle-light
(sic)'. 99While the standardhours worked by shoemakersand tailors were by no means
excessivefor the age, necessityoften drove men to work longer than was officially
stipulated. Campbell listed the working hours for practically every trade imaginable, and
the hours worked by shoemakersand tailors fell into the most common bracket, those that
95
Picture 3: Illustration
of Shoemakers at Work (1804)

Reproducedfrom Anon., TheBook of Trades: Part 2 (London, 1806)
Picture 4: Illustration of Tailors at Work (1806)

Reproducedfrom Anon., TheBook of Trades: Part 2 (London, 1806)
96
laboured between six in the morning and eight at night-100In the London tailoring trade
in
Many
1764.
Peace'
by
'Sessions
hours
the
workers clearly
of
these
were standardised a
followed long hours; thus John Brown woke at six o'clock every morning when working as
101Likewise, when JamesLackington was serving his
in
London.
journeyman
shoemaker
a
in
his
his
the
'called
to
in
Taunton
o'
clock
work'
at
six
people
up
master
apprenticeship
102
by
According
broken
day
to
The
the
only
meals.
was
working
monotony of
morning.
Robert Southey, the `labouring part of the community dine at one', though George
Bloomfield noted that his brother Robert went at `noon' and `fetched our dinners from the
103
Brown
John
in
late
break
thus
the
further
A
taken
afternoon;
was
meal
cook's shop'.
describeshow his fellow lodger `laid down his work and began to set his things for tea' as
104
day
four'.
For
the
hung
in
`clock
the
that
shoemakers
was
the
room struck
one corner of
had
journeymen
London
to
by
broken
call
to
the
work.
and
acquire
materials
need
up
also
have
'would
Brown,
in
they
to
the
evening otherwise according
at their shop around seven
105
day.
In Bristol this practice may have occurred
been without work the whole of the next
for
he
for
to
Charles
Allen,
that
beginning.
day's
used go out
example, remarked
at the
106
`Leather' sometimebetweenhalf past six and eight in the morning. Whether the working
day ended at eight or not appearedto dependeither on one's finances or position in life.
While apprenticedat Taunton, JamesLackington worked from `six in the morning until ten
during
'the
for
às
long
in
but
summer
the
see
without
candle'
as we could
winter,
at night'
half year'. 107John Brown found that the demandsof his recent marriage led to him
`frequently working sixteen hours out of the twenty-four', which must have entailed
depending
later,
from
in
ten
the
on whether meal
six
morning until
at night or
working
108
in
breaks were included Brown's working time. That Brown stopped `work at eight o'
from
the gruelling schedulerepresented
to
times
three
per week gain somerespite
clock'
109
beyond
day.
days
the usual working
the limitations to the number of
one could work
Likewise when Samuel Drew was seeking to establish himself as a master shoemakerin
Cornwall he laboured 'eighteen hours out of the twenty-four', which meant he was often
òbliged to sit up till midnight'. ' 10Those working longer hours naturally lost time intended
for rest, recuperation, and sleep.Working longer hours also inevitably led to an extension
of the working week. Thus, during Brown's early married life he 'scarcely ever went out
for a holiday except on Sunday'.' 11When one Monday afternoon Brown and his wife took
àn afternoon's holiday' he describedthis as a `rare thing' since his marriage.112The need
to work beyond what was considereda standardworking week seemsto have affected a
sizeablenumber of Bristol shoemakers.In 1777, for example, Bristol's journeymen
shoemakerscomplained that `Poverty and Distress' had led to the 'painful Necessity' of
being òbliged to violate the Holy Sabbath', and therefore give up the usual rest and
97
113
`lower
Lackington
the
that
James
Sundays.
class'
noted
also
that
characterised
recreation
114
Sundays
`working'
London
Bristol
as well as pursuing recreational activity.
spent
and
of
Longer hours and an extendedworking week naturally heightenedthe problems of the
lack
Ramazzini,
According
to
lack
of
health,
fourth factor to affect
of exercise.
namely a
becomes
`blood
ill-health'
the
led
`general
to
since
exerciseamong sedentaryworkers
body
`the
the
in
lodges
`waste
of
whole
the
condition
tainted' as
skin' while
matter
deteriorates'.' 15This applied èspecially to cobblers and tailors', rather than to sedentary
body'
in
`the
their
`potters
work process
whole
who
used
weavers'
and
workers such as
116
become
the
health'.
The
could
`better
process
work
thus ensuring
physical effects of
Brown's
John
This
from
break
trade.
the
was
particularly evident after a prolonged
during
for
four
the
from
he
trade
the
years
shoemaking
absent
experiencewhen was
Napoleonic Wars. Brown lamentedthat a sailor's `life of the greatestactivity' had left him
in
`back
from
`pains'
he
the
for
that
`very unfit
suffered
this sedentaryemployment', and
As
I
to
in
bent
from
loins
sit'.
a result,
the
compelled
position which was
arising
and
Brown was compelled to leave his work èvery half-hour' and `walk about the room till the
'
17
they
`to
take
Ramazzini
when
exercise'
physical
advised such workers
agony subsided'.
'
18
did
Robert
Bloomfield
It
that
'holidays'.
so.
some
would appear
could, especially on
'
19
John Brown
his
brother.
talked, for instanceof a `whole day's stroll in the country' with
himself
thirty minutes of exercise,and
to
three
allow
eveningsa week
stoppedwork early
he
his
to
took
the opportunity play a game of skittles, which
wife's relations
on a visit to
120
describedas 'very beneficial to personsof sedentaryoccupations'. An interesting
first
his
his
his
first
be
Brown
roommate at
meal with
shared
contrast can observedwhen
London lodgings. Brown ate well having been travelling yet his' companion ate but little',
121
day.
due
That
to
shoemakerssought exercisewhenever
all
at
work
sitting
presumably
they could was perhapsevident when the Bristol journeymen mentioned that they would
`give themselvesthe Pleasureof a Walk up to Durdham-Down', beyond Clifton, to discuss
Even a changefrom living in urban areascould quickly yield
their strike in 1777.122
beneficial results. Thus, when Lackington left Bristol to work in Devon for a year he
healthy
found
`the
body',
but
in
`weak
that
situation of the town' along
arrived a
state of
`with bathing in the salt water soon restored me to perfect health'. 123The importance of
clean air was not lost on John Rees,the Bristol shoemaker,who advised fellow shoemakers
not to sharerooms where `more than two or three (were) at work', since `breathing all day
124
breath
is
injurious
health'.
the confined
to your
of so many exceedingly
98
While the general health problems associatedwith the two trades would have undoubtedly
affected the Bristol men, their exposureto urban pollution in Bristol would also have made
them susceptibleto a range of more generalillnesses.The filthy nature of urban spaces
before the sanitation reforms of the Victorian period were all too evident in Bristol's
streets,especially those in the àrtisanparishes' of St. Thomas, St. Mary Redcliff and
Temple which formed a `denselypopulatedarea of Bristol'. 125Thus, when Richard
Cannington, the owner of a glass manufactory, gave evidenceto the House of Lords's
enquiry in 1786,he mentioned that Temple Street `slopesfrom each Side with a Gutter in
126
Middle'.
This situation doesnot seemto have changedmuch by 1807 when poet
the
Robert Southey, son of a Bristol linen-draper, remarkedthat Temple Street `displayed as
much filth, and as much poverty as I have seenin any English town', while Redeliffe
Street was `narrow, congestedand dirty. 127Problems of public health were not confined to
the àrtisan' parishesin Bristol. The areaaround St. JamesBack in the àrtisan parish' of
St. Jamesin easternBristol has been describedby one recent writer as one of the `poorer'
and `filthy areasof the city' in which the `cholera epidemics' of the early nineteenth
128
become
'concentrated.
This part of Bristol is depicted in picture 1, and
to
century were
as one can see,dwellings backed on to the River Frome. The fact that both `sewageand
industrial waste were dumped' in the Frome created ùnbearablelevels' of pollution in
129
installed
warm weather, since sewerswere not
until the mid-1850s. Bristol also suffered
from `woefully inadequatewater supplies', with the poor largely `dependenton the public
conduits and pumps' that had provided an èxcellent water supply' during the Middle Ages
but were `now inadequate' given rising population levels.130One measureof the
importance of such pumps to eighteenth-centuryBristolians is illustrated by the fact that
they were cited as landmarks within commercial adverts. Thus, Richard Roach advertised
that his recently openedshoe shop in Wine Street was to be found òpposite the Pumps',
while Snow and New advertisedtheir shoe shop in Dolphin Street as being' two Doors
from Peter's-Pump'.131Similarly a breeches-makernamed White advertised that his
132
àdjoining
St.
Peter's
in
Pump'
Dolphin
Street.
premiseswere
An understandingthat public health left something to be desired in Bristol in this period is

not just the product of twenty-first century hindsight. JamesLackington, for example, was
well aware of the problem during his time in the city's shoemaking trade. He described
how his wife becameèxtremely ill' due to exchanging the èxercise
and good air' of rural
Somersetfor the `sedentarylife and very bad air' associatedboth with
shoemaking
133
Bristol
specifically and
more generally. Later when they had moved to London disaster
struck for the Lackingtons when a `fever' claimed the life of his wife and left Lackington
99
134
by
brought
in
fevers
terms
business.
These
ill
look
on
a
too to
were general
after the
135
`fever'
While
the
term
`dirt,
overcrowding'.
poor water supply and general
mixture of
diseases',
to
the
term
for
àn
label
specifically
referred
of
enormous
range
as
a
was used
impact
individual.
Thus,
just
the
illness
further
the
The
than
on
typhus.
went
effects of
while his wife was ill in Bristol, Lackington was unable to afford a nurse, writing that
`much of my time was taken up in attendanceon her' while `most of my money (was)
136
both
in
London
`fever'
them
The
in
that
gripped
of
expended procuring medicines'.
home
His
his
business
his
lost
Lackington
and shop were only
wife.
as well as
almost
in
`nurses'
because
friends,
the
his
by
`from
attendance
sister and several
ruin'
saved
137
`would soon have emptied' the premisesgiven the opportunity. Less seriousproblems
Bristol
business.
Thus
Henry
Nevill,
disruption
to
a
everyday
could still causeconsiderable
tailor, lamented in 1789 that `breaking his leg' had preventedhim `personally waiting' on
`friendly
`generous
for
he
looked
and
a
publick'
among
understanding
customers,and
138
distress'.
creditors' during `the trying-hour of
Not surprisingly the more common diseasesof the agewere apt to strike men of the trade
down in their prime. Thus JosephBlacket, a shoemakerpoet and contemporary of Robert
Bloomfield, `died of consumption' in 1810 at the age of twenty-four, causedby the `hard
39
'
literary
Indeed
by
day
loss
ambitions.
sleep'
spent
pursuing
and
of
nightly
work
`consumption'claimedaround22 per centof Londondeathsin 1798,while `convulsions'

140
horrors
for
24
The
of the smallpoxwerewitnessed
cent.
accounted approximately per
head
had
beyond
for
`the
Irish
Brown
swollen
all
attendedan
wake a child, as
when
141
immense
In 1798 smallpox
plum-pudding'.
proportion and wore the appearanceof an
in
deadly
disease
for
deaths,
%
7.5
London
the
the early
the
nature of
as
accounted
of
eighteenth century had by the later eighteenthcentury been lessenedby' inoculation and
142
disease
itself'.
`potency
Activity on this
then vaccination', as well as the reduced
of the
front in Bristol was found in the `late 1760sand early 1770s' when `two competing
smallpox housesclaimed to be licensed by the Suttons', a firm of `great mass
inoculators'. '43Edward Jenner,a physician attachedto the Bristol Infirmary pursued `the
Though fatalities may have decreasedits qualitative
prevention of small-pox' in 1795.144
impact was still prevalent. Thomas Olivers (1725-1799) was described as having suffered
`from a terrible attack of small-pox' when living as a shoemakerin Bradford, Wiltshire. 145
The impact of the diseaseon Bristol's artisans can also be seenin the physical marks that
formed
often
a key part of numerous characterdescriptions. Thus, when JosephCollings,
an apprentice to Joel Stuckey in Bristol, abscondedfrom the latter's service in August
1773 he was described as having à large Pit of the Small Pox on one of his Checks'.146
100
Likewise when Henry Grace,an apprenticeto the Bristol shoemakerRichard King,

147
James
Small-pox'.
described
he
being
`pitted
in
the
1776
with
as
was
absconded
Vickery, a run-away apprenticefrom Bridgwater in Somersetwas also describedas being
It could also be used to describe escapedconvicts,
`marked with the Small-pox' in 1780.148
being
`pitted
described
the
Charles,
Philip
small
with
as
a
was
also
shoemaker
who
such as
pox' in 1796.149
Some shoemakersand tailors were not averseto putting their complaints, once cured, to
the service of medicinal advertisers,an èxtremely popular advertising strategy in this
lso
for
instance,
Henry
Mearn,
Fissell.
The
Bristol
Mary
to
shoemaker
period', according
him
he
had
in
This,
1769.
famous
Elixir'
Purging
`Dr.
Bostock's
claimed,
cured
advertised
involved
Cough'
Hacking
him
left
`violently
that
that
a
with
afflicted
of a complaint
`spiting a great deal of tough Phlegm', and had left him `thin and weak' and with a
`loathing of Food'. lsl Similarly John Knight, a Kent shoemaker,describedthe physical
152
This
his
in
Humour'
1775
`Scorbutic
that
and
shoulders.
arms
covered
effects of a
Skin
Parts
itching'
`scalded
that
the
èxcessive
scaled
so
other
corroded
and
and
caused
do
`scarcely
he
to
Knight
àttended
Fever'
my
able
was
admitted
and
was
with a
off' s
153
In 1783
Mr.
Spilsbury's
Drops'.
Work', though he was cured by `four small Bottles of
the wife of John Gambelled, a Bristol shoemaker,had become almost blind until she `was
154
1786
Edward
Bower,
In
January
by
Goergslenner'.
Dr.
the
to
a
sight
again
restored
20
having
fits
living
in
`been
St.
James,
troubled
that
with
upwards
of
claimed
shoemaker
155
had
been
St.
William
Turner,
James
he
had
been
by
Dr.
Brunswick.
tailor,
a
cured
years'
`sorely afflicted with a painful CANCER in his under-Lip' for two years until Dr.
Goergslennerperformed an operation in 1783 to remove the growth, a `practitioner' from
Queen Squarewho usually specialisedin `venerealdiseasetreatments'.156Artisans
therefore were not hesitant in putting forward their ailments for advertising purposes,
for
looking
to
medicines.
recoup paymentsmade
perhaps
Individual practitioners were not the only health resourceavailable to Bristol's artisans
however. The Bristol Infirmary was establishedin 1737 by `public subscription' with a
'
57
for
àfford
to pay
remit to refuse admission to patients who could
medical attendance'.
There is considerableevidence that poor Bristolians came to rely on the Infirmary. Indeed
a study of admissionsto the Infirmary between Michaelmas 1761 and 1762 by Bernice
Boss found that 7.4 per cent of Bristol's residentswere admitted in this year.158Patients
from àrtisan' parishesappearto have been particularly in need of this resource.Thus,
while the parish of St. Jamesonly accountedfor 20 per cent of Bristol's housing, it
101
27
in-patient
for
33
and
per cent of outpatient
admissions
per cent of all
accounted
Demand
'59
4,000
Infirmary
1790s
treating
By
the
patients
annually.
the
was
registrations.
160
from
itself
That
the
'84
Infirmary
localised;
city
came
patients
percent of
was mainly
.
the Infirmary had such demandsplaced upon it is not surprising considering the stateof
fairly
`craftsmen'
Though
Bristol.
health
in
regularly
appeared
eighteenth-century
public
ùnskilled
`laborers'
then
largest
`single
lists
the
and
were
the
group'
of patients,
among
161
intermittent
`low
from
both
employment'.
and
wages
groups which suffered
workers',
Artisans, by comparison,were consideredto have enoughresourcesto pay for their own
instance
his
the
Lackington
Fissell
the
as
one
where
wife
and
treatment.
of
case
cites
husband's earningsprecluded a visit to the Infirmary that would have beenpossible had his
162
free
to
It
that
`been
medical
therefore,
entitled
artisanswere not
seems,
single'.
wife
treatment, meaning that illness representeda burden in terms of medical costs, as well as
lost earnings.
Conclusion
In late eighteenth-centuryBristol the vast majority of shoemakersand tailors worked and
lived in the easternand southern àrtisan' parishes.These trends were slightly less
lodgings
journeymen
While
single-room
mainly shared
single
pronounced among masters.
in
journeymen
their
to
tended
wives, and
share with
with other men of the trade, married
living
that
The
instances,
quarters were very
their
suggests
evidencealso
children.
many
This
business.
fact
that
also
the
an
was
expensive
renting property
cramped, a product of
distribution
figures
the
that
the
reveal that only a
result
affected many masters,with
The
Bristol.
in
the
western
wealthier areasof central and
minority could afford premises
did
journeymen,
tailors,
that
not enjoy
especially
shoemakersand
evidence also suggests
the greatestlevels of health. Long hours spentworking in bent, sitting positions, combined
body.
Tailors
lack
the
to
and shoemakerswere therefore more
of exercise weaken
with
by
further
diseases
this
this
to
poor
the
aggravated
period,
and
was
of
common
susceptible
life
by
lessening
degraded
further
health
Illness
the earning
the
quality
of
standards.
public
late
Bristol
Taken
they
that
the
together,
the
suggest
of
eighteenth-century
artisan.
power
journeyman was largely a victim of circumstance.Thus, for example, he could do
inhabited
he
little
the
type
to
or the amount of hours he laboured.
of room
change
relatively
These material conditions of life, combined with an inability to do much to changethem,
food
important
factors
help
levels,
to
which
explain why wage
prices, and wage
were
bargaining becamesuch prevalent concernsamongjourneymen shoemakersand tailors in
this period.
102
ENDNOTES
' Anon., Crispin Anecdotes: Comprising Interesting Notices of Shoemakerswho have beenDistinguishedfor
Genius,Enterprise or Eccentricity (Sheffield, 1827), p. 172; T. Mortimer, A General Commercial Dictionary
(London, 1819), p. 913.
2 J. F. Rees, TheArt and Mystery of a Cordwainer; or An Essayon the principles and practice of Boot and
Shoe-Making (London, 1813), p. ix, xi (preface). By the mid-nineteenth century shoemakersformed 'the
largest single artisan occupation' in Britain. According to national censusreturns, their numbers increased
from 133,000to 243,000 between 1841and 1851,according to national censusreturns. SeeE. J. Hobsbawm
88,106.
(1980),
89,
Scott,
`Political
Shoemakers',
Past
Present,
J.
p.
and
and
3 J. Brown, Sixty Years' Gleaningsfrom Life's Harvest (Cambridge, 1858), pp. 25,164-165.
R. Campbell, TheLondon Tradesman(London, 1747; 1969 Reprint), p. 193.
$J. R. Farr,Artisansin Europe,1300-1914(Cambridge,2000),p. 243.
6 E. Baigent, 'Economy and society in eighteenth-centuryEnglish towns: Bristol in the 1770s' in D. Denecke
and G. Shaw, (eds), Urban Historical Geography: RecentProgress in Britain and Germany (Cambridge,
1988), p. 110.
7Ibid., p. 112.
8Ibid., p. 110.
9 The maps were basedand amendedon thoseused by Elizabeth Baigent in her survey of 1770sBristol. See
E. Baigent, 'AssessedTaxes as Sourcesfor the study of urban wealth: Bristol in the later eighteenthcentury',
Urban History Yearbook(Leicester, 1988)p. 44.
10Baigent, 'Bristol in the 1770s', p. 337,118-119.
" Ibid., pp. 118-119.
12Ibid., p. 119.
13R. Rodger, Housing in Urban Britain, 1780-1914: Class, Capitalism and Construction (London, 1989),p.
12.
14Thus in St. Philip there were 622 voters in 1784,whereasthere were only 558 in 1754. In St. Jamesthere
were 760 voters in 1754,rising to 883 in 1784.Basedon the Poll Book figures.
's In 1754 there were 268 voters in St. Stephen,while in 1784 this had fallen to 135. In Christchurch there
had been 127 voters in 1754,yet only 83 in 1784.Basedon the Poll Book figures.
16Mathews'sBristol Directory, 1793-4(Bristol, 1794),pp. 31-32.
"J. Latimer, TheAnnals of Bristol in the Eighteenth Century (Bristol, 1893), p. 494.
18SeeBristol RatesIndex: Parishes& Streetstherein, 1800-1823,BRL, BL 14/15. However this source
allotted some streetsto St. Paul, a parish formed in 1794out of 'the easternpart of St James' parish'. Thus
the figures for thesestreetswere addedto the St. Jamestotal, the parish they were in when the poll books
were collated. SeeA Survey of Parish Boundary Markers and Stonesfor Eleven of the Ancient Bristol
Parishes (Temple Local History Group, Bristol, 1994),p. 14; 'National Index of Parish Registers,Society of
Genealogists(London, 1966), p. 26.
19Hobsbawm and Scott, 'Political Shoemakers',p. 103.
20S. Stoddard,Bristol before the Camera: The City in 1820-30, Watercolours and Drawings from the
Braikenridge Collection (Bristol, 2001), p. 27.
21J. Rule, TheExperience of Labour in Eighteenth-CenturyIndustry (London, 1981), pp. 33-34.
22SFBJ 17/4/1784.
23Baigent, 'Bristol in the 1770s', pp. 118-119.
24Ibid.
25Felix Farley's Bristol Journal (hereafterFFBJ) 2/4/1796.
26FFBJ 22/11/1800.
27E. M. Green,`Thetaxonomyof occupationsin lateeighteenth-century

Westminster'in P. J. Corfieldand
D. Keene,(eds),Workin Towns,850-1850(Leicester,1990),p. 170,165.
28Annual Register, 1800, Vol. 42, p. 319.

29Ibid.
30Ibid.
31Brown, Sixty Years' Gleanings, p. 27,37-3 8.
32Ibid., pp. 169-170.
33W. E. Winks, Lives Illustrious Shoemakers(London, 1883), 104.
of
p.
34S. Johnson,A Dictionary
of the English Language: Two Volumes(London, 1755; 1983 reprint).
33Crispin Anecdotes,p. 173; JamesDacres Devlin, The Guide to Trade: The Shoemaker(London, 1840),
p.
10
36Bristol Quarter Sessions(hereafter BQS), Bristol Record Office, 18'hApril 1776, JQS/P.
37J. Lackington, Memoirs the First Forty-Five Years the Life James Lackington, The
of
of
of
present
Bookseller in Chiswell-street, Moorfields, London; Written by Himself (London, 1792), pp. 163-164.
38Ibid., p. 153.
39Ibid., pp. 163-164.
40BQS, 21" October 1784,JQS/P.
41Lackington, Memoirs., 194.
p,
103
42GloucestershireLent Assizes, 19/3/1776,Indictments, ASST5/96/4.

43Ibid.
asBQS, 15`h& 16`hMarch 1786,JQS/P.
46GloucestershireLent Assizes, 19/3/1776.
47Winks, Illustrious Shoemakers,p. 109.
4' Bristol Gazette(hereafterBgaz) 1/10/1772.
49Sarah Farley 's Bristol Journal (hereafter SFBJ) 28/5/1785.
50Bonner and Middleton's Bristol Journal (hereafterBMBJ) 24/5/1777.
S' Bristol Journal (hereafterBJ) 29/5/1773.
52SeeAn Account of the Housesand Inhabitants of the Parish of St. Philip and Jacob in the City of Bristol,
1781, taken by JamesNew, Vicar, Bristol ReferenceLibrary, B. R.L. B33284. For the number of rated
,
housesin 1751 and the population figure for that year, seeJohn Browning's calculations in The Gentleman's
Magazine and Historical Chronicle, Vol. 24 (London, 1754),p. 315. For the censusfigure for 1801 seeTable
3: 1.
53Rodger, Housing in Urban Britain, p. 8.
54Ibid.
55The Gentleman's Magazine, 1754,p. 315.
56SeeB. D. G. Little, The City and County of Bristol: a Study in Atlantic Civilisation (Bristol, 1954), p. 327,
for estimatedpopulation figure for 1775.
s' An Account of the Houses and Inhabitants JamesNew.
....
SaJournals of the House of Lords, Vol. 37,1786, p. 515.
59Stoddard, Bristol before the Camera, p. 49.
60BMBJ 12/5/1792.
61Rees,Art and Mystery, p. 134.
pp. 338-339.
63These calculations are basedon the following method. = 20 shillings. Therefore 100 (2,000 shillings)
divided by 13 (shillings) = 154 weeks = 2.96 years; 500 (10,000 shillings) divided by 13 (shillings) = 770
weeks = 14.8 years.
64Rule, Experience of Labour, p. 33.
65Baigent, 'Bristol in the 1770s', p. 121.
68Rees,Art and Mystery, p. 134; BMBJ 12/5/1792.
69Baigent, ÀssessedTaxes', p. 33.
70Lackington, Memoirs, p. 194. In the later eighteenthcentury half a crown was worth 2'h shillings while a
pound was worth 20 shillings.
' BJ 2/9/1769.
72Brown, Sixty Years' Gleanings, p. 232.
n Winks, Illustrious Shoemakers,p. 31.
74Bristol Mercury (hereafter Bmerc), 31/1/1791.
75FFBJ 3/4/1773.
76FFBJ 14/5/1774.
" SFBJ2/5/1778;FFBJ7/10/1780.
78Bgaz30/3/1780;BJ 27/4/1771.
79FFBJ2/3/1776.
S0Baigent, `Bristol in the 1770s', p. 120.

1BQS, 17`hJanuary 1785,JQS/P.
82Bmerc,2/10/1797.
83C. Shammas,The Pre-industrial Consumerin England

and America (Oxford, 1990), p. 98. Thus Peter
King found that between 1658 and 1731 among the probate inventories of Essex 'Tradesmen and artisans',
89% contained 'chairs', while only 22% contained a 'chest of drawers', and 25% owned 'earthenware'. See
P. King, 'Pauper Inventories and the Material Lives of the Poor in the Eighteenth and Early Nineteenth
Centuries' in T. Hitchcock, P. King, and P. Sharpe,(eds), Chronicling Poverty: The Voicesand Strategies of
the English Poor, 1640-1840 (Basingstoke, 1997), p. 162.
94Hobsbawm and Scott, `Political Shoemakers', 97.
p.
asCampbell, London Tradesman, 219.
p.
a6Winks, Illustrious Shoemakers, 81-83.
pp.
87Ibid., p. 103.
p. 193.
891.J. Prothero, Artisans

and Politics in Early Nineteenth-CenturyLondon: John Gast and his Times
(Folkestone, 1979), p. 27.
104
90B. Ramazzini, De morbis artificum: Diseasesof Workers,the Latin text of 1713 revised with translation
and notes by Wilmer Cave Wright (University of Chicago Press,Illinois, 1940), pp. 281-283. Bernardino
Ramazzini (1633-1714) was an Italian physician and 'epidemiologist'.
91Ibid., p. 283.
92Ibid.
93Campbell, London Tradesman,p. 193; Anon., Book of Trades,or Library of the Useful Arts Part 2
(London, 1806),p. 81.
94Bmerc 13/1/1794.
95Campbell, London Tradesman,p. 193.
96Both pictures also depict a foreman/cutteror mastercutting out materials in the foreground.
97Crispin Anecdotes,p. 46; Rule, Experienceof Labour, p. 83.
98Crispin Anecdotes,p. 213.
99Campbell, London Tradesman,p. 193.
10Ibid., pp. 338-339.
101
Annual Register, 18/1/1764,p. 47; Brown, Sixty Years' Gleanings, p. 38.
103R. Southey,Lettersfrom England (London, 1807; 1951 edition edited with introduction by J. Simmons),
r 88; Annual Register, 1800, Vol. 42, p. 319.
104Brown, Sixty Years' Gleanings,p. 28,30.
0' Ibid., p. 292.
06BQS, 15`hMarch 1786, JQS/P.
109Ibid.
110Winks, Illustrious Shoemakers,p. 131,133.
"' Brown, Sixty Years' Gleanings, pp. 331-332.
112Ibid.
113BMBJ 17/5/1777.
115Ramazzini, Diseasesof Workers,p. 283.
16 Ibid., pp. 283-285.
118Ramazzini, Diseasesof Workers,p. 285.
19 Annual Register, 1800,Vol. 42, p. 319.
120Brown, Sixty Years' Gleanings, pp. 331-332.
121
Ibid., p. 29.
122BMBJ 2/8/1777.
X25
Baigent, 'Bristol in the 1770s', p. 119; Stoddard,Bristol before the Camera, p. 87.
'26Journals of the House of Lords, Vol. 37,1786, 515.
p.
127Southey, Lettersfrom England, 475; Stoddard,Bristol before the Camera, 87.
p.
p.
128Stoddard,Bristol before the Camera, 49.
p.
'29Ibid., p. 46,51.
130Stoddard,Bristol before the Camera, p. 14; E. Ralph, The Streets Bristol (Bristol, 1981), 9.
of
p.
131SFBJ 21/11/1778,17/10/1789.
'32Bgaz 22/7/1790.
134Winks, Illustrious Shoemakers, 33.
p.
"s L. D. Schwarz, London in the Age
oflndustrialisation: Entrepreneurs, Labour Force and Living
Conditions, 1700-1850 (Cambridge, 1992), p. 134,141.
136Lackington, Memoirs, 200.
p.
p.
138FFBJ 10/10/1789.
139Winks, Illustrious Shoemakers, 311-312.
pp.
140Schwarz, London in the Age Industrialisation,
of
p. 139.
141Brown, Sixty Years' Gleanings, 299.
p.
142Schwarz, London in the Age Industrialisation,
of
p. 139,150.
143M. E. Fissell, Patients, Power,
and the Poor in Eighteenth-Century Bristol (Cambridge, 1991), p. 66.
144A. V. Neale, Medical Progress in Bristol: The Long Fox Memorial Lecture,
1963 (Bristol, 1964), p. 7.
p.
146
BJ 7/8/1773.
'a' BJ 17/2/1776.
148
Bgaz9/3/1780.
105
149Bgaz 10/11/1796.
150Fissell, Patients, Power and the Poor, p. 18.
151BJ 9/12/1769.
152FFBJ 30/9/1775.
153Ibid.
154FFBJ 30/8/1783.
155FFBJ 14/1/1786.
156FFBJ 7/6/1783, Fissell, Patients, Power and the Poor, p. 65.
157E. Ralph, Governmentof Bristol, 1373-1973(Bristol, 1974); Neale, Medical Progress in Bristol, pp. 5-6.
Other outlets of health care in eighteenth-centuryBristol were provided by the `Corporation of the Poor' who
provided 'both inpatient and outpatient care through the workhouse', and also by the Corporation who
offered a 'domiciliary health-careservice'. SeeFissell, Patients, Power and the Poor, pp. 102-103.
ASS
B. Boss, 'The Bristol Infirmary, 1761-2 and the "laborious-industrious poor"', Ph.D. Thesis, University of
Bristol, 1995,p. 40.
1S9Ibid.,p. 36.
160Fissell, Patients, Power, and the Poor, p. 96.
161Ibid., p. 103.
'62Ibid., p. 104. Thus `many Infirmary patients did
not have local family', implying that the 'hospital played
a similar role to that of the rural Poor Law in providing an alternative to domestic care'. p. 105.
106
Chapter 4: Diet, the Cost of Living and Real Wages in Bristol, 1769-1799
The last chapter examinedthe mannerin which the parish of residence,housing and
This
for
life
Bristol's
tailors.
the
shoemakers
and
of
quality
working conditions affected
in
It
therefore
living
play a major role
costs,wages,and real wages. will
chapter measures
laying the basis for understandingthe impact of such issueson wage claims, a theme to be
long-term
five.
is
in
trends or national
This
with
study not concerned
addressed chapter
faced
but
instead
to
the
that
situation
assess
seeks
aggregations,unlike many surveys,
Bristol artisansin the last thirty years of the eighteenthcentury. Spendingpatterns of ruralbasedlabourers are furnished becausethey provide the best example of extant budget
is
income
Gaining
for
that
the
the
the
proportion
of
right
weightings,
weights
period.
key
importance.
issue
By
item,
is
to
contrast with many previous
an
each
of
allotted
is
here
debate
diet
budget
to
the
a
concerning
and
weights
wedded
question of
studies,
living
in
depth.
Thus,
costs
are
considered
staple
contemporary perceptionsof necessity.
Attitudes to certain foods are explored through evidencegleaned from Bristol newspapers
as well as from artisan memoirs. Together these enableestimatedweightings to be made
for Bristol's shoemakersand tailors. Combined with a collection of prices gathered,these
permit the construction of cost-of-living indices. Price analysis, without knowledge of
is
limited
its
in
clearly
earnings,
use. Tailors' wages,the most reliable data, are therefore
assessedin order to gaugereal wage levels.
The Sample
Table 4: 1 shows the distribution of annual income spent on various necessitiesfor 78
labouring families across 11 southernEnglish counties. These were collected between
Easter 1787 and February 1793 by David Davies, a Berkshire clergyman, and Sir Frederick
Eden and are hereafter referred to as the DE data.' While the Davies and Eden samples
were national, this work draws exclusively upon the material that they compiled for the
southern counties. Different consumption habits in the northern counties and in Scotland
would have distorted the picture. And, as chapter two has shown, Bristol's artisans,
although mobile, rarely moved beyond southern England. The geographic spreadof this
sample and the number of families of different sizes contained within it are representedin
table 4:2. Only one budget of a Bristol family was obtained. However, six budgets for
Gloucestershireand three for Somersetare also available with the result that ten of the 78
budgets originated either from within Bristol or from within reasonableproximity of the
city.
107
Table 4: 1 : Average Grocery Expenditure of 78 labouring families in Southern

England, 1787-1793
Commodity
% of annual
expenses
47.04
Bread/Flour
12.49
Meat
Tea/Sugar/Butter 9.22
Cheese
3.74
1.08
Beer
0.60
Milk
Vegetables
0.26
74.43
Total Food
Candles/Soap
4.99
3.70
Fuel (e.g. coal)
Clothes
10.45
Rent
6.43
Total
100
% of families
% of annual
food expenses having this
expense
100
63.20
97.44
16.78
98.72
12.39
62.82
5.02
21.79
1.45
0.81
17.95
6.41
0.35
100
98.72
84.62
98.72
92.31
-
% of expenses
among users
47.04
12.65
9.34
5.68
4.95
3.33
4.12
5.06
4.38
10.59
6.96
-
Source: D. Davies, The Caseof Labourers in Husbandry Stated and Considered: with an Appendix
containing a collection of accountsshowing the earnings and expensesof labouring families in different
parts of the kingdom (Bath, 1795; 1977Reprint), pp. 136-183.;F. M. Eden, The State of the Poor: or An
History of the Labouring Classesin England,from the Conquestto the Present Period (London, 1797; 1994
Reprint), p. 15,204,433-34,547,585,645. Of the 78 families sampled, 72 were drawn from Davies's study
and 6 from Eden.
Table 4: 2: Breakdown of DE sample by Geographical Distribution and Family Size

Counties
Berkshire
Bristol
Cornwall
Dorset
Number of Families
11
1
18
9
% of Families
14.10%
1.28%
23.08%
11.54%
Gl'stershire
7.69%
Hampshire
Middlesex
Northants
Oxfordshire
Somerset
Surrey
Total
Family Sizes
3 People
4 People
5 People
6 People
9
1
7
1
3
12
78
11.54%
1.28%
8.97%
1.28%
3.86%
15.38%
100%
5(15)
11(44)
18(90)
21(126)
6.41%
14,10%
23.08%
26.92%
7 People
17(119)
21.79%
8 People
4(32)
5.14%
9 People
2(18)
2.56%
Total
78 444
100%
Source: V. Davies, The Caseof Labourers in Husbandry Stated and Considered: with an Appendix
containing a collection of accountsshowing the earnings and expensesof labouring families in different
parts of the kingdom (Bath, 1795; 1977Reprint), pp. 136-183.; F. M. Eden, The State of the Poor: or An
History of the Labouring Classesin England,from the Conquestto the Present Period (London, 1797; 1994
Reprint), p. 15,204,433-34,547,585,645.
108
The range of data usedhere compareswell with other similar studies.Neale's study of
Bath, for example, relied on just three budgets,for an artisan, labourer, and pauper.2
Family sizeswithin the samplevaried from 3 to 9 members.Davies mentions that `families
3
four
five
in
or
with
young children are common country parishes'. Given that difference
in family size affects spendingdistribution, it is important to consider any potential
disparities betweenthe DE sample and the families of Bristol artisans. In fact, the DE data
doesnot appearto be unrepresentativeof Bristol's artisansin this respect.Bristol's
shoemakersclaimed in 1777 to have to provide for a `Wife and five or sevenChildren',
while Bristol's tailors cited in 1773 their needto support a `Wife and 4 or 5 Children'.
Urban artisans,like rural labourers,often had large families. Further evidence testifies to
this. In September1797, for example, the suicide of a Bath tailor in September1797 was
reported to have left his ten offspring ìn great distress', while the accidental death of a
Portsmouth shoemakerin 1799 left èight children' without a fathers Furthermore, the
artisan autobiographiesof JamesLackington and John Brown reveal that the authorswere
6
one of eleven and six children respectively.
The validity of the DE samplewas also reinforced by making a comparison between the
earnings of those in the DE samplewith Bristol's two trades.Too wide a differential would
again have distorted the picture. While Davies thought agricultural labourers could earn
twelve shillings per week for 'four months in the year', he concluded that their average
earnings did not actually èxceed8s a week'. Eden reported that, in 1797, `common
labourers' in Bristol earnedbetweenten and fifteen shillings per week.7 In 1796 Bristol's
shoemakerscould earn 11'/2shillings per week at maximum levels of production. In the
summer of 1796, Bristol's tailors earned 14 shillings per week, their highest seasonal
8
earningsperiod. This suggeststhat, in terms of earnings, therefore, Bristol's shoemakers
and tailors fell into Eden's category of `common labourers'. Other evidence supportsthis
conclusion. Wage assessments,conductedby magistratesin south-west England during the
earlier eighteenth century, show that a labourer was only expectedto allow 8 per cent more
of his income to food than a master carpenter.This suggestsa relatively close correlation
in living standards,especially considering that the two groups together representedthe top
9
bottom
`working-class
hierarchy'.
the
Given this evidence, and the fairly close
and
of
correlation between the earningsof those contained in the DE sample and those of Bristol's
journeymen, it seemsclear that the DE material provides a good starting point from
which
to measurethe spendingpatterns of Bristol's shoemakersand tailors. Use of a range of
existing historical studies, combined with material from Bristol newspapersexpressing
concerns about prices, and more fragmentary evidence from autobiographies, together with
109
analysisof the DE material,thereforelaysthebasisfor a fuller understandingof the diets

of Bristol's artisans.
Eighteenth-Century Diet
According to Hudson, the question of the proportions of income awardedto different
items, known as weights by standard-of-living historians, should be consideredas à matter
i
issue.
judgement'
The
historical
than
rather
statistical
matter of weights,
a
purely
of
therefore, also touchesthe heart of issuesconcerning what eighteenth-centurysociety
illustrates
diet.
4:
1
The
be
in
Table
this.
to
terms
sample shows
of
necessities
perceived
that, on average,the 78 labouring families laid out 74.43 per cent of their income on
foodstuffs. This is an enormousproportion comparedto modern patterns. Studies show that
`householdsin most Western countries spendbetween 20 per cent and 33 per cent of their
disposableincome on diet'. "
The data compiled by Davies and Eden has had substantial influence upon historical
knowledge of late eighteenth-centurybudgets.It has beenused, for example, by Phelps
Brown and Hopkins (hereafterPBH), and by Carole Shammas,and Charles Feinstein
12
data
be
Given
in
DE
that
the
the
automatically
others.
proportions
cannot
among
transferred to the experienceof Bristol's artisans,it is necessaryto discuss the average
budgets of the 78 labouring families in some depth, together with an assessmentof
empirical evidence from Bristol and artisan memoirs.
A starting point must be made with bread, becauseas Table 4: 1 makes clear this item
represented47.04 per cent of all expenses,and a massive 63.20 per cent of food
expenditure. Not surprisingly, given that bread was the most important staple food in the
period, every family in the sample consumedthis item. Thus, Davies himself remarked that
`bread makes the principal part of the food of all poor families' and àlmost the whole of
the food of all such large families. 13In remarkable conformity with the DE sample,
Thomas Ruggles, an eighteenth-centurycommentator, assertedin 1792 that èverybody
knows that bread covers at least two-thirds of the expenditure on food'. " The importance
of bread in eighteenth-centurysociety was also illustrated by the writings of its most
learned figures. Johnson,for example, provided additional definitions of bread as meaning
`to get sufficient for support without luxury' and representing `food in general', while
Daniel Defoe's heroine Moll Flanders talked of independencein terms of being àble to
15
bread
by
get my
my own work'. Bread was therefore a ubiquitous necessity. This kind of
evidence has provided the basis for scholars, including E. P. Thompson, to claim that while
110
by
bread
live
did
in
labouring
alone' many certainly
`the
not
people the eighteenthcentury
16
bread'.
`lived very largely on
bread
Davies
that
largely
bread
wheaten
England
claimed
In southern
made of wheat.
was
bread
have
labourers)
(the
as
sufficiency',
a
can
was `the only good thing of which they
into
the
`constantly
among
general
use
more
growing more and
made of this grain was
17
felt
likewise
Eden
that wheat
Frederick
luxury'.
`their
lower classesof people' and was
bread was an èssentialpart of the diet of a labourer in the Southernparts of England',
it
that
in
definition
was
the
Johnson's
concluded
century
mid-eighteenth
of
wheat
while
18
`the grain of which bread is chiefly made'. Thompson reckoned that by the 1790s'twoboth
Petersen
Salaman
bread,
argued
and
while
thirds of the population were eating wheat'
British
food
the
become
had
bread
1770
the
`by
of
majority
of
a
chief
that,
wheat
19Thus, while someworkers in the North and Scotland subsistedon rye and barley
people'.
bread, according to Arthur Young writing in 1767, such bread was `looked on with a sort
Young
In
England.
in
the
by
commented,
horror
south,
even poor cottagers' southern
of
20
important
is
knowledge
kind
This
bread'.
finest
`the
demanded
of
they
and whitest wheat
to the weighting of budgets,becauseit reveals that wheat should form the majority of the
shareallotted to grains.
While the prices of bread and other foodstuffs is consideredlater, the popular conception
in this period that prices were rising inexorably, provides important insights into which
foods were considerednecessities.Indeed, so widespread was this idea that Shammas
`skyby
Eden
Davies
to
taken
over
the
concern
and
the
surveys
origin of
attributes
21Davies attributed the high cost of bread to the developmentof a
food
prices'.
rocketing
farmer
between
the
there
in
This
the
that
stood
customer
and
meant
corn.
market
wholesale
both
`shopkeeper'
but
`mealman'
just
the
the
of whom received a
the
and
also
miller,
not
22
`profit out of the poor man's earnings. Eden noted that the `labouring classes' of
Hereford complained that it was difficult to buy corn in small quantities, since the `millers
23
from
John
large
buy
it
large
in
the
consumer'.
a
profit
quantities and extract
and mealmen
Brown, the London shoemaker,noted the importance of small-scale retailing for the poor.
Thus, the shop he lodged above retailed groceries such as bread ìn the smallest possible
24
by
late
Thompson,
`the
According
the
to
to
eighteenth century,
poor'.
quantities'
`marketing procedures' had become `less transparent' becausemillers and dealers `were in
25
high'.
High prices naturally affected
better
hold
keep
the market
position to
stocks and
a
the proportion of income consumedby bread. Thus, Thompson reckoned that when `prices
family
labourer's
be
high
budget
than
the
more
of
of
a
spent
one-half
were
weekly
might
111
80
led
in
there
France
to
per
1789
spending
artisans
bread',
the
crisis
economic
while
on
from
26
far
Eden
therefore,
Davies
bread.
The
were,
and
their
concernsof
on
wages
cent of
isolated. Thus, Thompsonreflected that àfter 1750 eachyear of scarcity was accompanied
7
by a spateof pamphlets and letters to the press'. Poole has likewise drawn attention to the
high
for
hucksters'
`hoarders
blamed
prices
in
Bristol
and
newspapers
often
ways which
8
kind
This
for
lower
demands
for
of
prices'.
òffered
public
platform
a
natural
and
itself.
in
Bristol
bread
importance
of
evidence allows one to assessthe
Bristol
by
the
local
on
civic
elite
importance
bread
to the
The
populacewas recognised
of
from
the
Kingswood
1753
port,
shipments
corn
over
Corporation. Since the
colliers
riot of
local
high
lessen
the
on
corn prices
effects of
the Corporation had made great efforts to
hundred
29
thousand
for
the
January
1775,
In
of
one
arrival
anticipated
example,
people.
bushels of wheat was expectedto reduce the `price of that most necessaryarticle', and, at
least one Bristol baker advertisedcheaperbread on the basis of the `large Quantity of
30
In July 1795,a local news editorial congratulated the `wise and
imported.
Wheat
flour'
large
for
`purchasing
Corporation
foresight
and
quantity of wheat
a
of the
salutary'
31
Bristol's civic dignitaries also organised
`scarcity'.
in anticipation of the present
in
least
in
felt
be
this
part,
to
at
always
consisted,
need, and
collections when the poor were
Poor'
`Labouring
for
the
1776,
bread.
In
February
two
thousand
received
of
example,
of
`Bread and Money' in the artisan parish of St. Philip and Jacob,while in January 1789
32
In July 1795 and October 1799
Nicholas.
St.
bread was sold at `half price' to the poor of
Bristol's Quarter Sessionsbannedthe sale of bread of a `superior quality' than
`STANDARD WHEATEN BREAD (sic)' in order not to waste grain. Furthermore, during
in
RANKS
àll
the
to
Bristol
1795
the
poor, advised
committee established relieve
crisis a
SOCIETY (sic)' to savebread by purchasingmeat and vegetables.This, they urged, was in
in
Situation
àre
to
for
Poor'
they
the
Àrticle
not
a
to
since
so
necessary
save
an
order
33
However,
Comfort
Support'.
to
their
Food
such
and
equally well suited
procure other
lambasted
for
local
the
One
example,
editorial,
sentimentswere not always so prevalent.
in
higher
`the
following
for
the
classes'
of
middling
and
example
not
working people'
34
bread
families'.
in
This
`consumption
their
the
to
of
article
measures
reduce
adopting
items
for
bread,
to
such
as
potatoes
a piece of advice with
urged workers substitute
it
by
According
Salaman,
to
opposed
working
men.
national resonanceand one commonly
began
in
importance
between
1800
1775
`that
to
the
a
assume
place
of
potato
and
was only
the dietary of the working classesof England'. Members of the `clergy' were `foremost in
35
for
bread.
because
its
Government
recommending the potato
of
cheapness'as a substitute
encouragedthis. In 1794 and 1795, for example, the Board of Agriculture reacted to bad
112
harvestsby publishing articles advising workers to adopt potatoesas a' cheapsubstitute for
36
longer
lineage.
had
In
Bristol
have
As early as
this
to
a
strategyappears
wheat'.
December 1772, for example,the Bristol pressadvocatedthe `free importation of Potatoes'
due to their utility as àn excellent substitute' for bread at a `time of scarcity'. 37In 1775,
the importation of two thousandtonnesof potatoesto Bristol was thought to be a `great
8
relief to the poor at this time of scarcity'. Potatoeswere also often among items
distributed by the city's relief committees.This was the case,for example, in February
1776, February 1795,and April 1796.39In August 1796,an instruction in the local press
advised making `good wholesomebread' from potatoes,while in February 1800the `Rich'
by
for
Òpulent'
hailed
to
the
and
responding
scarcity
substituting potatoesfor bread
were
àt their dinner and supper'40 The potato was, therefore, resorted to not from preference,
but às a result of actual want'. Thus, Eden noted, in 1797, that high prices caused
labourers in Clyst St George,Devon, to make `great use of potatoes'. 1Unlike many of his
contemporaries,Davies was far from enthusiasticabout the substitution of potatoesfor
bread, writing that the potato `has the advantagein cheapnessonly' as `wheat is superior in
2
all other respects'. The prevailing opinion in eighteenth-centuryEngland was that the
potato had little appeal. One agricultural writer exclaimed, for example, that `Potatoesare
3
for
but
fatten'.
Jonesand Spang argue that `the
good
none
swine and those they won't
majority of eighteenth-centuryEuropeans' felt `that potatoeswere unfit for human
44
consumption'. However, what Salamanterms `the battle of the white loaf, was `won in
1795'. Many pamphlets written at this time championedbread consumption. These
included one by a Taunton writer who insisted that since `the Poor' eat little but bread this
45
be
`most
kind'
The indifference of `working people' to the civic
should of the
nourishing
elite's plan in August 1795 to reduce wheatenbread consumption appearsto conform to
such sentiments. Other evidence likewise indicates that journeymen perceived potatoesas
items of last resort. In June 1777, for example,journeymen shoemakersin Bristol
6
diet
`Potatoes
that
Salt'.
their
While this
complained
wages could only maintain a
of
and
was undoubtedly a partly rhetorical statement,it is neverthelessalso revealing about their
attitudes to this food.
Meat formed the secondhighest component of expenditure, comprising 12.49 per cent of
total expenses,16.67 per cent of the food budget, and was consumed by 97.44 per cent of
the families in the DE sample. While, at first sight, this appearsto indicate an almost
universal and relatively healthy level of meat consumption, the proportion of income spent
does not necessarily equateto the amount of food consumed.This is especially the
caseif
the commodity is expensive.Thus, while meat may have been the second foodstuff in
113
terms of spendinglevels, it was not the secondmost common item that labourersactually
ate. Rather, falling meat consumptionwas closely related to the growth in consumption of
wheatenbread. Thus, Davies, for instance,drew a parallel between high meat prices and
the reduceduse of rye, barley and oatmealbread.These,he argued, had beenpreviously
acceptablewhen `poor people' could eat meat as an accompanimentto a `coarserkind of
bread'47 The use of wheat bread, he argued,was therefore a result of `their inability to buy
meat', since for the price of one pound of meat one could have `three pounds of wheaten
bread'. The latter, Davies commented,`will go at least twice as far as one pound of
48
meat' It, therefore, appearsthat meat was becoming a luxury in labouring families. Other
evidence supportsthis. Among Gloucestershirelabourers,for example, Davies found that a
`pound of bacon' would be made to last for a `fortnight or three weeks', while among his
own Berkshire parishionershe found few families who `can afford themselvesmore than 1
lb of meat weekly'. 49Eden likewise noted that in Berkshire, `the Poor here seldom taste
fresh meat', while Kent labourers in 1795had reducedtheir meat intake comparedto ten
50
`now
it
in
the
that
taste
they
years since, with
result
seldom
winter'.
The importance of meat to the Bristol population was illustrated in 1772 when à
committee of gentlemensubscribed2,000 to set up their own slaughter house and
"
butchers
in
successfully undermined
combinations the market'. It was reported that they
sought to reduce `the staple commodities of life to a reasonableprice'. Meat was among
`their chief objects', and the butcherswere lambastedfor throwing meat away rather than
52
it
selling to the poor. Likewise, in August 1796 a butcher was condemnedfor throwing
beef into the river when `many necessitousand industrious families' were deprived of the
53
ìts
high
through
article
excessive
price'. That meat was regarded as a necessity is further
shown by the inclusion of beef in relief supplies to the poor at times of hardship, such as in
February 1776,January 1789,and February 1795, for example.54The importance of meat,
especially beef, was also shown by the intervention of the civic elite at times of need. In
June 1795, Bristol's magistratesoffered a bounty on imported fish, as a remedy to lower
beef prices, at a time when a riotous crowd had seizedmeat from a Bristol butcher." Civic
intervention concerning the bread supply in 1795 meant that rioting occurred
over meat
s6
fish
bread.
and
prices, rather than
This type of evidence suggeststhat meat formed an integral part of the diet
of working men
in Bristol. Referencesto meat in the autobiographiesof John Brown
and JamesLackington
also show that it was a valued part of the diet, albeit one which was not always affordable.
Even although John Brown was a single journeyman living in London
without the expense
114
diet.
While
included
`four
in
his
family,
did
feature
supper
one
automatically
a
not
of
meat
described
Brown
bacon'
`most
that
to
a
contributed a
excellent meal',
nice rashersof
`beefsteak
bought
in
had
he
`poorly'
that
the
the
onions'
and
result
eaten
with
period which
"
for him on joining the army was portrayed as a `hearty meal'. JamesLackington and his
in
fare
to
they
worse when
were working shoemaking in Bristol. Lackington
wife appeared
little
boiled
broth
but
little
(meat)
`made
that
that
they
and
made
and
we
use of
mentioned
hoped
London
decision
been
have
to
to
This
they
to
to
their
move
where
part of
seems
of'.
leave behind the ìncessantsuffering and semi-starvation(that) seemedinevitable' in
Bristol. 58Other evidencealso indicates that the plight of the provincial shoemakerwas
Carey,
for
William
labourers.
Thus
that
example, a
common
of
comparablewith
family
left
his
in
bordering
in
à
in
Leicester
1789
that
state
on
recalled a period
shoemaker
59
food'.
had
`passed
The Bristol
many weeks without animal
starvation' when they
local
in
high
February
desperate
times
news
editorial
noted
at
of
prices; a
situation grew
1796, for example, that the `poor artisan and labourer' could not `procure for his family a
60
day
in
taste of meat' even òne
the week' It appears,therefore, that while meat was
its
in
it
that
was often, practice, a luxury.
perceived as a necessity, price meant
Unfortunately, the budgetscollected by both Davies and Eden give aggregatefigures only
for proportions spent on tea, sugar, and butter. However, the loss of specificity that a more
detailed breakdown might have provided is compensatedfor by the knowledge that
families saw thesecommodities as forming one component of their spending. This is not
surprising considering the use of thesecommodities to provide flavour and sweetnessto
61
in
form
the substanceof meals themselves. They, therefore, formed
meals, rather than to
no small part of spending,representing9.22 per cent of total expenses,12.39 per cent of
the food budget, and were consumedby 98.72 per cent of the families in the DE sample.
This data shows that they undoubtedly formed an essential component of what made a
meal palatable. Sugar, in particular, had metamorphosedfrom being an expensive luxury in
the seventeenthcentury to an item in common usageby the later eighteenth century.
Growing imports reducedprices.62By the 1790ssugar imports stood at 24 lb per capita,
and the fact that a person required 'about 241ba year' of sugar to be `regularly sweetening
food or drink', suggeststhat sugar was mass consumedin the late eighteenth century.63
Commodities that were consideredto be necessities,therefore, varied over time. Thus,
while coffee and sugar had once been 'luxury goods', by the end of the eighteenth century
they had become everyday items which it was `difficult to imagine life without'. 64In
Britain `caffeine drinks' had become ìtems of massconsumption' in the century
after
115
65
1650 and were regularly used by `25% or more of the adult population'. Southey
attributed the popularity of tea to the fact that it was `very cheap', despite rising duties in
66
this period. According to Davies, high milk and beer prices meant that tea was often the
`last resource' for working people. Tea and bread,he commented,could furnish òne meal
for a whole family every day' at a cost of just òne shilling a week.
Tea was therefore
commonly consumedduring meals. Thus, for example,the family of a Portsmouth dock

labourer were said to `generally breakfast on tea', while Kent labourers in 1795 drank `tea
68
at all their meals'. Tea likewise regularly formed a part of John Brown's meals in
London, while JamesLackington's time in 1770sBristol as a single man often included
69
he
his
living
diet
`bread
Later,
tea'.
periods
of
and
wife were on hard
on a
and
when
times, Lackington `fried some wheat' and then boiled it in water to make a `tolerable
70
for
substitute
coffee'. However, despite its importance, the experienceof the Lackingtons
also shows that such drinks were sacrificed when times were really bad.
The general cheapnessof sugar and caffeine drinks was in marked contrast to the expense
of butter. According to Davies, this item was so expensive that `working people can now
7'
in
scarcely afford to use them the smallest quantities'. Both dairy and poultry items
appearedto form an expensivepart of the diet. While Bristol newspapersmade no mention
of tea or sugar,perhaps due to their cheapnessor the fact that their being imported meant
that there was little prospect of controls, concernsover butter prices filled more newspaper
spacethan both bread and meat. A letter written in July 1778 described butter as among the
`necessariesof life' and complained that profiteering traders were responsible for enhanced
72
prices. Another correspondentlamentedthat, even in plentiful times, the price of butter
was not lowered due to the practice of those with òpulent fortunes' paying `whateverprice
the farmer asks', so keeping prices high which he felt must be `distressing to the poor'. 73
Unfair marketing practices were often blamed for high prices. In May 1790, for example,
the èxorbitant price' of butter was blamed on a `combination among the market-people
here', while in 1795 and 1796 a boycott of butter was advised until the price was lowered,
an action described as displaying `compassionto the poorer part of the community'. 74The
senseof butter as a necessityis reinforced by the action taken in May 1797 when there was
a `considerabledegreeof riot in our markets' over butter prices when the `poor served
75
themselves'. In December 1799, newspapereditorials once again blamed those paying
high butter prices for doing an ìnjury to the poor' and the `community large'. 76Thus,
at
butter appearsto have been seenas a necessity for all sections the
of
community in Bristol.
116
Cheeseconstituted only 3.74 per cent of expensesin the DE sample, accounting for 5.02
families.
62.82
by
the
budgets,
food
sample
per cent of
and consumed only
per cent of the
This was undoubtedly due to its expense.Davies remarkedthat `little cheeseis used'
labourers
labourers,
Dorset
Gloucestershire
that
ate no cheesewhile
many
and
among
77
dearest
buy'.
Berkshire and Cornish labourersthought of cheeseas `the
article they can
However, the cost of cheesewas different in different regions and localities. Thus, Eden
discoveredthat the family of a Portsmouthdock-labourer were said to breakfast
`sometimeson bread and cheese',while among Kent labourers cheeseformed a part of
`their usual diet'. 78John Brown describedhow he consumedcheeseand bread numerous
79
`humble
`frugal
repast'.
meal' or a
times in his memoirs and describedsuch eventsas a
Workhouses in Bristol, Dorset, Hampshire, Berkshire, Hertfordshire and Northampton all
80
included bread and cheeseamong their suppers. This type of evidence suggeststhat
factor
between
different
differed
that was presumably
places, a
widely
cheeseconsumption
largely determinedby price levels.
This leavesthree foodstuffs, milk, vegetablesand beer from the DE sample, each of which
bought
families
budgets.
for
Fewer
than
the
tiny
milk,
one-fifth
of
sharesof
accounted only
be
for
love
That
is
had
in
lamented
`milk
Davies
to
that
places
or
money'.
many
not
and
the poor were `very much at a loss for due supplies of milk' he attributed to the fact that
farmers found the veal market more profitable.81Thus, a labourer's family from Blandford,
Dorset consumedonly a `very little milk', while `no milk' was used in a Portsmouth dock
labourer's family. 82That artisan autobiographiesnever mention milk consumption, and
that milk never featuresin concernsin Bristol over high prices, also suggeststhat it did not
form a crucial element of an artisan's diet. While it is hard to imagine that artisansnever
consumedvegetables,they are never mentioned in artisan memoirs or newspaperrecords.
Vegetables formed only a small element of the expensesof rural labourers, a mere 0.35 per
cent. This was undoubtedly due to their ability to grow their own produce, an option not
have
been more widely
Beer
to
to
available many urban-dwelling artisans.
appears
consumed.John Brown drank beer with most of his meals, especially those consisting of
just bread and cheese,and Southey noted that `beer is the common drink' of working
83
men. Another London shoemaker,George Bloomfield, remarked that èvery day' the
`boy from the public-house came for the pewter pots, and to hear what porter was
84
wanted'. Of course, the consumption of beer for dietary purposeswas supplementedby
recreational drinking. When JamesLackington arrived in London, for instance, he found
that Sundaysamong `the lower class' were spent in `getting drunk' and `fighting', and
85
he
had
`much
that
kind
in
Bristol'.
There is also evidence that
remarked
seen
of the same
117
for
1771,
In
July
time
Bristol's tailors spenta considerableamount of
consuming alcohol.
forced
St.
Philip
Jacob,
to
from
journeyman
Leonard
Bowsher,
tailor
and
was
a
example,
for
in
the
his
through
press
an official notice
master,on pain of prosecution,
apologise to
86
(sic)'.
Bowsher had apparently
having defamedhis master ìn severalPublick-Houses
in
letter
1790,
the
April
drinking
in
In
press
a
published
pubs.
spent considerableperiods
`keepers
the
in
the
then
of
tailors'
earmarked
the
progress
strike which was
concerning
Tap-houses.....frequentedby... journeymen (sic)' for blame, and the writer desiredaction
87
licences'.
While such evidence of
that would `deprive the Ale house-keepersof their
beer
for
information
little
the
drinking
spent
on
amounts
about
provides
recreational
dietary purposes,it suggests,nevertheless,that beer made up a fairly large componentof
expensesamong urban artisans.
While the foodstuffsthat formedthe coreof the rural labourers'diet werealsoimportantto

Bristol's artisans, it is necessaryto provide an adjustedmeasureof weights in order to take
for
Bristol.
displays
in
4:
3
Table
Bristol.
different
the
adjusted
weights
situation
account of
The ways in which thesewere calculated is explained below.
Table 4: 3 : Best Estimate of Budget Weights for Bristol's Tailors and Shoemakers
Commodity
Grains (3)*
(2)A
Meat
TSB (2)**
Cheese
Beer
Milk
Veg
Total Food
Tallow (Candles/Soap)
Coal
Clothes
Rent
Total
% of annual
ex enses^^
40.00 (47.04)
12.49
9.22
3.74
4.95 1.08
0.00 0.60
0.00 0.26
70.40 (74.43)
7.70 4.99
5.00 3.70
4.04(l 45
.
12.86 (6.43)
100
Index weightings
40 w=36; b=3.6; o= 0.4
12.49 (b= 6.25; m= 6.24)
9.22 (s= 4.61"b=4.61
3.74
4.95
70.40
7.70
5.00
4.04
12.86
100
* Prices for wheat, barley, and oats were obtained. The sub-weighting basedon the preference in the Bristol
region has been made as follows; Wheat = 90%, Barley = 9%, Oats - 1%. (Petersen,Bread, p. 198)
^ Pricesfor beefandmuttonwerethe mostconsistent.Thetwo meatshavebeenawardedequalshares.
* No tea prices were discovered for Bristol, though given its cheapness,the lack of data will not undermine
the portion now assumedby sugar and butter. These latter two commodities have been awarded equal shares.
^^ The figures in brackets representthe proportions from Table 4: 1, allowing an easy comparison.
Bread has been re-weighted at 40 per cent of the budget, just 7 per cent less than in the DE
sample. This figure may appearsurprising considering Schwarz's claim that an ìndex for
88
20
artisans' should weight cerealsat per cent. However, this study, unlike others, is
concernedwith short-term rather than long-term prices. Although PBH also adopted 20 per
118
between
fifteenth
for
bread
in
the
the
that
their
period
embraced
a study
cent as
weighting
late
for
bread
53
the
DE
their
twentieth
cent
at
per
sampleweighted
and
centuries,
89
eighteenthcentury. In addition, the term àrtisan' covered many varieties of workers, and
Schwarz's weighting relates to London, whereasthis study is only concernedwith two
labourers
level
bread
in
decision
The
to
that
Bristol.
to
trades
a
nearer
of
at
weight
specific
than London artisanscan be understoodthrough the following example. In 1779, a group
in
in
drew
London
journeymen
which they allocated an
claim
up
a
wage
saddlers
of
90
for
income.
To
bread
24
this
their
to
to
that
adopt
rate
of
cent
per
was equivalent
amount
Bristol's shoemakersand tailors would, however, be unwise for the following reasons.
Firstly, 1779 was a year of low wheat prices, which tends to understatethe usual
for
knowledge
Bristol's
Secondly,
income
rates
of
wage
our
of
spent.
proportion
journeymen tailors and shoemakersillustrates that the 4s l Id that the London saddlers
for
have
24
bread
than
to
more
per cent of the
weekly
would
accounted
spend
on
expected
is
by
fact
This
Bristol
the
that wheat
the
enhanced
men.
comparison
wages
of
weekly
91
if
fairly
in
in
This
West
London
that
the
this
time
a
similar.
suggests
at
were
and
prices
Bristol tailor earned 14 shillings per week during the summer of 1777,4s 11d on bread
fact
have
35
his
This
takes
the
that
account
cent
no
of
represented
per
of
wage.
would
summer was his best-paid time of year and that underemployment and lower wages tended
92
in
to prevail the winter months. In the sameyear Bristol's shoemakers,working at piecebread
10
The
saddlers' expenditure on
would have claimed
rates, earned shillings a week.
49 per cent of thesewages,again taking no account of lost time.93Other evidence supports
this picture. In 1770, for example,JamesLackington had a mere four shillings and six
bad
food
during
two
to
spend
pence
on
weather. This represented50 per cent of
months of
his weekly wage of 9 shillings, and suggestshe could afford little other than bread.94An
averageof the 1777 proportions among the two Bristol trades is 42%, meaning that a 40%
budget share for bread is conservative given the cheapprices in 1779. Finally, Neale's
study of Bath workers' living standardsweighted bread at 52 per cent, again more than the
DE sample, and the Schumpeter-Gilboy Index also weighted bread at 40 per cent.95
Although some indexes, such as the S-G index and the Schwarz index, which weigh meat
at 20 and 25 per cent respectively, differ from the DE results, other evidence suggeststhat
the latter was more accuratefor Bristol artisans,96Thus, Neale, for example, allocated 13
per cent of the budgets of Bath workers to meat, a figure roughly comparable with the DE
97
12.49
PBH
12%.
the
On this basis, this study has
weighting of
per cent, and
weighting of
left the Bristol weighting unchangedat 12.49 per cent for meat. This decision finds support
in other, more qualitative, evidence. Lackington, for example, clearly ate little
meat while
119
in Bristol. This is substantiatedby the evidenceof the local press on high meat prices, and
in
his
in
Brown's
did
feature
fact
of
that meat
account
experiences
the
not
regularly
London.This evidencethereforesuggestsa weightingconsistentwith the DE sample

be
should used.
The weights for tea, sugar,butter, and cheesehave also been left unchangedat 9.22 per
21
London's
their
Although
3.74
saddlers
spent
per
cent
of
respectively.
cent and
per cent
is
here.
This
items,
the
this
especially
weightings
should not alter
projected wages on such
so becausetheir greater level of earningsallowed them to purchasea greater quantity of
98
it
has
been
4.95
foods.
Beer
to
rendering
consistentwith the
cent,
raised
per
non-bread
families
21.79
item
budget
the
this
that
the
who
cent
of
per
claimed among
proportion of
listed it as an expensein table 4: 1. Milk and vegetableshave been excluded from the
including,
in
lack
lack
basis
the
a
of
particular,
of empirical evidence,
of a
weightings on
price information.
Overall the new weighting allocates 70.4 per cent to food, compared to 74.43 per cent in
the DE sample.While this reduction may appearsmall, the allocation is actually 65.45 per
journeymen
London's
if
beer
takes
the
saddlers' statementof
out
of
equation.
cent one
spending appearedto allocate 68.2 per cent for food, a very similar ratio considering they
did not list beer as an item.99Given that the saddlers' proportionate spending on bread was
justifies
further
decision
keep
for
journeymen,
less
Bristol's
to
the
the
than
that
this
much
proportions of other foods at a low level. Thus, the sameamount of bread claimed a lesser
proportion of the saddlers' income, allowing them to spend more on other commodities
than was available to Bristol artisans.
The most important alterations that needto be made with regards to the DE data is the
housing
(rent),
light
levied
(candles), heat
as
essentials
such
proportions
on non-food
(coal), and clothing. Rent posed the biggest challenge in terms of historical accuracy in
terms both of weightings on the one hand, and reliable data on the other. The likely
difference between Bristol's artisansand the DE sample are evident in Burnett's claim that
for `the urban working classes' rent was `probably' the largest expenseafter food, since
unlike rural labourers, there `were no free cottagesand no possibility of running up a shack
'
on the common'. Likewise, Lindert and Williamson argue that urban workers spent a
relatively smaller proportion on food and a higher one on housing compared to rural
labourers.1' Schwarz claims that the `poorestworkers' in London paid around 20 per cent
of their income in rents in 1848, while those such as `tailors' paid around 16 per cent of
120
their income. Similarly Tucker arguesthat `rents of artisans' in eighteenth-centuryLondon

102
income.
16.66
tended to equal one-sixth of their weekly wage', being
per cent of this
There is some evidenceto suggestthat London rents, in terms of the actual amountspaid,
James
Nancy
Lackington
level
in
Thus,
Bristol.
to
those
and
got
when
a
were on similar
lodgings'
in
1770
`ready-furnished
Bristol
they
at a chargeof two
at
acquired
married
103
by
John Brown, the London
This
the
paid
amount
was
shillings and sixpence.
very same
London
before
1795
has
George
`standard
the
that
artisan'
of
a
rent
shoemaker.
posited
104
journeymen
in
London
for
In
1779
`furnished
`2s
6d
the
saddlers
a
room'.
a week'
was
for
income.
12
This
`lodging',
`2s
6d'
their
towards
cent
per
of
accounting
also allocated
in
in
based
Bristol
have
25
1777
wage
cent
shoemaker's
on
claimed per
of a
amount would
earningsof 10sper week, and 17.86per cent of the Bristol tailor's earnings at a summer105
14
time rate of
shillings per week. Unfortunately, there is no way of knowing whether
the rent paid by the Lackingtons in Bristol was generally paid by other artisansin the city.
The problems of reliable evidenceare compoundedby a lack of any reliable rent data for
the period. Thus Flinn posits that `long runs of rents for comparableproperties are virtually
non-existent', while Lindert and Williamson criticised previous price indices for omitting
rents, yet their own rent serieswas basedon only a `few dozen cottagesin Trentham,
Staffordshire' which can hardly be taken as representative.106However, Neale's study of
Bath managedto acquire useful rent data from eighty-one `working-class houses' during
the 1830s.Even though they did not reveal the èxtent of sub-letting' or the `cost of a
single room', Neale used this data to provide a weighting of 13 per cent for rent, in
107
S-G
Index
fuel
15
to
comparison the
which weighed rent and
at
per cent. Rather than
rely on unreliable empirical evidence it was decided to mirror the Bristol rent weighting on
that for Bath, as the new weighting of 12.86per cent is double that for labourers among the
DE sample. This is a conservativecompromise made the more necessaryby the lack of any
reliable rent seriesfor Bristol. This study has, however, been able to draw upon Feinstein's
new series, compiled by using tax assessmentsto gain an averagerent by aggregatingthe
108
dividing
by
`the
inhabited
houses'.
While Feinstein
rents and
correspondingnumber of
overcamethe lack of data between 1770 and 1800 by extrapolating the figures backwards,
the stability in his rent-seriesuntil the mid-1790s does correspond with George's portrayal
109
London
being
juncture.
of
rents
stagnantuntil this
The proportionof incomespenton coal andcandleswasraisedabovethe level spentby

rural labourers,to 5.00per centand7.70per centrespectively.This wason the basisthat,
largelyworkedindoorsandat homebecausethe trade
as seenin chaptertwo, shoemakers
wasbasedon outworking.Theseworkerswould thereforehaveneededto usemorelight
121
doors.
labourers
homes
of
heat
in
who worked out
their
comparedto agricultural
and
`we
in
Bristol
that
meant
Lackington,
According to
the expenseof rent, coal, and candles
had but little left for purchasingprovisions'.
' 10This was especially so during the harsh
èxtremely
severe
Lackington
two-month
of
that
period
a
mentions
winter months.
from
for
food,
just
4V2
left
him
a weekly wage of nine shillings.
shillings
with
weather'
During such periods the real strain presumablyarosefrom the increasedneed for coal and
"'
The
less
expense.
and
more
stable
varying
candles,rather than rent which representeda
high level of winter living costswas emphasisedby striking journeymen shoemakersin
"2
March 1796who claimed that `candlesin winter cost much'. However, the weightings
in
With
high
this
in
favour
be
biased
mind,
too much
of
winter consumption.
should not
had
budgets
felt
his
Davies
While
that
the coal weighting was not raised significantly.
in
below
it
being
`much
that
many places',
article
costs
what
underestimatedcoal costs,
Bristol largely received its coal from the nearby `mines at Kingswood' and so would have
13
been relatively cheaper. The proportion consumedby candleswas raised more
in
item
importance
fully
this
the
by
50
to
allowing
of
represent
over per cent,
significantly,
drastically
by
has
been
hours.
long
The
to
clothes
proportion assumed
shoemakers work
for
following
in
DE
from
10.45
the
4.04
the
reasons.
to
sample,
per cent
per cent,
reduced
Most importantly, shoemakersand tailors would have undoubtedly been able to make
footwear and clothes for themselves,on a cheaperbasis than was available to rural
labourers. The prices of clothes are another item largely obscuredby time, though this
importance
by
draws
Feinstein,
the
of
reflects
growing
which
upon a seriescollated
study
114
linen'.
Therefore given data that may
`cotton fabrics relative to those made of wool or
have had only the flimsiest of relevanceto Bristol, in addition to our lack knowledge of
how often artisanswould have looked to furnish themselveswith clothing, a low weighting
be
best
felt
to
the
option.
was
BRISTOL PRICES AND THE COST OF LIVING

Having gatheredthe most realistic weightings possible from the surviving records, the next
step is to gather relevant prices in order to construct a cost-of-living index for Bristol. This
requires as many Bristol prices as possible and thesewere found in Bristol's newspapers.
For the years in which prices are known the goods and measuresare consistently
commensurate,allowing monthly averagesto be converted into annual ones. Prices were
wholesale rather than retail, though this is consistent with the practice of every preceding
"'
living.
Recently, Feinstein has written that `wholesale and
the
study of
standardof
institutional prices', including those for food, mirrored 'closely what is known of the
122
Table 4: 4: Bristol Food Prices - Yearly Averages, 1769-1799(in Shillings/Pence)*

Barley
2/2Y2
2/10
3/.
3/7
3/7
3/4%2
3/2
2/9'h
2/5
3/2
Oats
1/71/2
1/10
2/2/'/i
2/2/1'/2
2/1/8V2
1/10'/z
1/9V2
Year
1769
1770
1771
1772
1773
1774
1775
1776
1777
1778
1779
1780
1781
1782
1783
1784
1785
1786
1787
1788
1789
1790
1791
Wheat
6/2
5/2
6/%:
6/9'/2
6/10
6/9
6/2
4/5V2
5/5
5/4''
5/6
6/6
7/1
6/1'/2
3/3/1
3/5V2
3/5V2
2/1
2/V2
2/3'/2
2/1
1792
1793
1794
5/1
5/6
6/5'/2
3/3
3/61/2
4/-
2/%2
2/4
2/7'/2
1795
9/5
4/9'/2
2/11'/s
1796
8/11'/:
4/4V2
2/7
Beef
Mutton
Sugar
Butter
Cheese
Ta11ow^
43/8'/4
46/9'/4
45/2'/2
40/11'/2
40/3'/,
39/40/9'/,
41/3
2/2'/1
5/6
41/9
V2
42/3
41/1
41/1
Y2
44/1
'/2
45/8
'/3
50/72/6
66/6'/a
32/6
41/10
45/-
43/10%
46/5V2
44/1
-/4%
-/5
-/5
46/54/11
65/1
'/2
5916
63/6
59/3
58/9
63/1%
69/4'/2
51/2
48/10'/2
49/11'V2
47/'/,
47/8'/4
46/2'/2
-/5'/,
79/3
71/5
49/11'/1
5115V2
-15'/2
81/4
73/-
47/-
59/3%2
-/5
1797
80/9
45/3
2/5
73/3
1798 8/3
4/50/53/4
-/5%
84/6
48/7'/
3/1'V2
55/75/7'/
1799 8/4
4/5V2
59/5
-/6'/s
* The weights and prices were as follows: Wheat, Barley and Oats = per Bushel
Beef, Sugar, Butter, Cheeseand Tallow = per Hundredweight (cwt)
Mutton = per Pound
Sourcesand Methods:- The above prices were collected from various extant issuesof the Bristol newspaper
pressbetween 1769 and 1800. Every surviving issue of a Bristol newspaperwas searched,being especially
comprehensiveas very few gaps in the newspaperrecords exist. Thus gaps in the prices are attributable to
gaps in the sourcesrather than to any selection criteria. The manner in which the annual prices were
calculated was as follows. In any given month the lowest and highest range of that commodity were taken to
establish a monthly average.For each calendaryear the monthly averageswere then taken to form a yearly
average.
AWith regardsto Tallow prices, in the 1770stwo sorts of tallow are listed, Irish and Russian. In the 1790sthe
tallow is divided between that thoseused for soap and candles,and further between Irish and Russian
varieties of each.Throughout the period the averageyearly price for each separatetype was ascertained,and
then an overall yearly averagewas gleanedof all types. Thus in the 1770sthe above average is of Irish and
Russian tallow, while in the 1790sthe averagerepresentsthat of Irish candle, Irish soap, Russian candle, and
Russian soap.While obscuring the trends in each type it was felt necessaryto offer an averageof all types,
given that it is not known which type, if any, was favoured by shoemakersand tailors. Furthermore, the
weighting evidence did not specify certain types, so this method gives a true averageof all the tallow
available for candlesand soap.
123
Table 4: 5 : Index of Prices (1), 1769-1799(1791=100)

Year
1769
Wheat*
100.68
Oats*
78.00
Barley*
63.86
Beef'
80.76
Mutton"
90.00
Sugar"
69.09
Butter***
88.38
1770
84.35
88.00
81.93
80.76
90.00
69.09
94.39
1771
1772
1773
1774
1775
1776
1777
1778
1779
1780
1781
1782
1783
1784
1785
98.64
110.88
111.56
110.20
100.68
72.79
88.44
87.76
62.24
89.12
101.70
117.00
100.34
87.07
89.80
96.00
98.00
96.00
102.00
96.00
82.00
90.00
86.00
7700
85.00
83.00
122.00
109.00
102.00
106.00
96.39
103.61
103.61
97.59
91.57
80.72
69.88
91.57
59.64
59.64
62.65
115.06
103.01
66.87
104.82
89.73
89.73
89.73
86.74
83.75
89.73
86.74
89.73
86.74
83.75
83.75
89.73
92.72
98.70
92.72
95.00
95.00
95.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
90.00
90.00
90.00
95.00
100.00
97.50
95.63
69.09
69.09
69.09
69.09
69.09
69.09
69.09
69.09
69.09
69.09
69.09
69.09
69.09
69.09
76.78
97.71
103.66
99.28
82.37
92.70
109.30
120.26
112.12
102.10
82.99
84.56
87.69
90.51
87.07
92.08
1786
1787
1788
1789
1790
1791
72.45
88.78
89.80
106.12
115.65
100.00
107.00
91.00
100.00
98.00
110.00
100.00
77.11
75.90
86.75
89.16
100.00
100.00
98.70
101.69
101.69
98.70
101,69
100.00
98.13
99.38
100.63
97.50
100.00
100.00
76.78
76.78
76.78
70.63
84.33
100.00
89.57
86.13
75.48
75.16
108.99
100.00
1792
82.99
98.00
93.98
101.10
95.00
91.36
88.32
1793
89.80
112.00
102.41
98.31
100.00
97.50
94.93
1794
1795
1796
1797
105.44
153.74
146.26
119.73+
126.00
142.00
124.00
98.00++
115.66
138.55
126.51
98.19++
98.40
105.58
109.37
143.57
100.00
105.00
110.00
140.00
90.98
121.69
124.89
117.46
104.29
107.36
109.74
110.55
1798
1799
134.69
136.05
116.00
150.00
115.66
128.92
119.64
131.61
110.00
130.00
123.99
129.75
110.12
113.65
* Prices in italics are from Gloucester.They were in shillings per quarter (8 bushels= a quarter) and were
divided by 8 to give a bushel figure commensuratewith the Bristol prices for these grains. (G. E. Mingay
(ed.), TheAgrarian History of England and Wales: Volume VI, 1750-1850 (Cambridge, 1989), p. 982.
Mingay's figures arose from the Gloucesterpress,rendering them especially compatible with Bristol prices.)
+ This price is from Exeter. (E. W. Gilboy, Wagesin Eighteenth Century England (Cambridge, Mass., 1934,
p. 290)
++ Theseprices are basedon national averages.(Mitchell/Deane, 1962,p. 488)
^ Beef figures in italics are from deliveries made to St Thomas's Hospital, London, twice yearly at Lady Day
and Michaelmas. The London figures were per stone (81b),and to be commensuratewith Bristol figures were
multiplied by 15 to give a hundredweight figure of 1201b.(Mingay, Agrarian History, pp. 998-1000).
^^ Mutton figures are from the Lord Steward's Department. Given that they are in stonesat 81bper stone,
and Bristol figures are per lb, then the London figure was divided by 8 to make them commensurate.(Lord
Beveridge, Prices and Wagesin England,from the Twelfth to the Nineteenth Century: Volume1, Price
Tables: Mercantile Era (London, 1939; 1965 edition) p. 426)
** Sugar figures in italics are from Navy Victualling, and are for brown sugar. Although incomplete between
1771 and 1784 they are the best available source.And given in amounts of 121bthey have been multiplied by
10 to give a figure commensuratewith Bristol ones,which are in hundredweights of 1201b.(Beveridge,
Prices and Wages,p. 565)
*** Butter figures in italics are from Navy Victualling records in London, and were made
commensurate
with Bristol on the following terms. Bristol figures = Hundredweight; London figures - 121b;
Hundredweight =1201b; thus (London) x 10 = Hundredweight figure. (Beveridge, Prices
and Wages,p. 576)
124
Table 4: 6: Index of Prices (2), 1769-1799 (1791=100)

Year
1769
1770
1771
1772
1773
1774
1775
1776
1777
1778
1779
1780
1781
1782
1783
1784
1785
1786
1787
1788
1789
1790
1791
1792
1793
1794
1795
1796
1797
1798
1799
Cheese*
79.17
86.11
93.06
84.72
73.15
71.76
77.78
87.04
100.00
95.83
79.17
69.44
73.15
77.78
91.67
83.33
84.72
90.28
93.06
86.11
72.22
92.96
100.00
113.70
108.61
111.02
111.02
104.44
130.56
100.56
108.06
Beer'
70.83
75.00
75.00
77.08
81.25
83.33
83.33
83.33
83.33
83.33
83.33
83.33
83.33
95.83
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
95.83
100.00
100.00
104.17
107.29
104.17
104.17
104.17
104.17
104.17
112.50
Tallow**
99.05
91.87
99.15
106.05
102.55
92.91
91.49
88.47
92.63
93.57
100.95
95.84
90.74
82.80
82.80
90.17
90.17
119.66
127.03
102.08
99.53
105.39
100.00
106.81
108.22
104.82
116.73
134.59
109.17
120.98
134.78
Coa1^^
85.73
92.49
92.77
87.32
85.92
88.08
94.74
97.18
100.56
99.91
102.72
101.88
104.69
95.49
88.54
94.55
94.74
92.96
93.62
92.21
98.31
99.06
100.00
103.85
108.17
116.15
102.16
100.75
102.25
120.28
128.17
Clothes***
102.08
102.08
102.08
102.08
103.13
103.13
103.13
103.13
103.13
104.17
104.17
104.17
104.17
104.17
103.13
103.13
103.13
103.13
103.13
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
106.25
106.25
Rent^^^
99.00
99.00
99.00
99.00
99.00
99.00
99.00
99.00
99.00
99.00
99.00
99.00
99.00
99.00
99.00
99.00
99.00
99.00
99.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
105.94
105.94
105.94
105.94
105.94
115.84
115.84
* Cheesefigures in italics are from Greenwich Hospital, and were made commensuratewith Bristol
ones on
the samebasis as butter was converted above.Although the cheesewas not cited as Gloucestershirecheese,
as the Bristol figures were, theseprices bore the closest resemblanceto Bristol ones for the years in which
both sourcesare comparable.(Beveridge, Prices and Wages,pp. 293-295)
^ Beer prices are taken from deliveries to ChelseaHospital, and were in shillings per barrel. (Beveridge,
Prices and Wages,p. 313)
** Tallow prices listed in italics were obtained from Navy Stores,the only source to list tallow
prices for
theseyears and in measuresof hundredweight (cwt). (Beveridge, Prices and Wages,pp. 674-680)
^^ Thesearebasedon indexfiguresfor coalpricesfor England.They havemerelybeen

alteredto a baseyear
of 1791.(Daunton,ProgressandPoverty,p. 581)
*** In the absenceof a series of prices for clothes in Bristol, the above have been borrowed from
an index
compiled by Feinstein in his recent study. (Feinstein, `PessismismPerpetuated', p. 640)
AAAIn the absenceof a series of rent figures, the above have been borrowed from
an index compiled by
Feinstein, whose figures for the late eighteenthcentury have been extrapolated backwards from the
nineteenth century. (Feinstein, `PessimismPerpetuated',p. 640)
1791 Base Year Amounts (in pence) for Table 4:5 & 4: 6.
Wheat = 73.5d (bushel)
Barley = 41.5d (Bushel)
Oats = 25d
(bushel)
Beef = 501.5d (per Cwt)
Mutton = 5d (per lb)
Sugar = 781.5d (per Cwt)
Butter = 798.25d (per Cwt)
Cheese= 540d(per Cwt)

Beer = 144d(perbarrel)
Tallow = 529d(per Cwt)
Coal = 106.5 (Index number)

Clothes = 96 (Index number)
Rent = 101 (Index number)
125
fluctuations in retail prices'. 116Table 4:4 shows the Bristol prices that have survived in the
following series,with the exception of 1797in every case.Grain prices were found for
1769-1778,1785, and 1788-1799,tallow, for 1771-1778and 1789-1799,sugar,butter and
cheesefor 1789-1799,and meat for 1791-1799.Tables 4:5 and 4: 6 provide a full list of all
indexed prices, calculations and sources.Where gapsexisted, they were filled by prices
from elsewhere,such as Gloucestergrain prices or London prices. Given the mobility of
Bristol's artisans,seenin chaptertwo, this use of non-Bristol prices is justifiable. In any
case,Bristol prices account for 40 per cent of the weightings provided for the period from
1769 to 1770,47.69 per cent of those between 1771 and 1778 inclusive, 40 per cent for
both 1785 and 1788, and 60.65 per cent for the years 1789 and 1790. They also account for
73.14 per cent of the weightings for the period between 1791 and 1799. Moreover,
although 26.86 per cent of the weighed items had no Bristol record, it must be remembered
that it is trends in price movements,rather than absoluteprices, that concern this study. In
this regard, all the calculations have taken 1791 as the baseyear, on the basis that Bristol
because
data
for
item
for
this
the year pre-datedthe
price
was available
every
year, and
massive inflationary surge of the French Wars. The Bristol and non-Bristol prices were
combined into price indexes on the basis of their weightings, in order to form a composite
cost of living index. This is set out in table 4:7.
Table 4: 7 reveals the following trends. Between 1769 and 1799 the cost of living in Bristol
rose by 38.43 per cent, although between 1769 and 1778 the index only rose 0.30 per cent,
despite some steeprises in the early 1770s.Between 1780 and 1789 the index rose by
10.32 per cent, a figure which slightly masksthe inflation of the early 1780s.The index
rose by 14.34 per cent between 1780 and 1782alone. Between 1789 and 1799 a massive
30.36 per cent rise occurred, a result of the high inflation of the 1790s.Indeed 1792 was
the only year during the 1790snot to figure among the ten highest, a year that was also the
lowest year of the 1790s,in the index compiled by Lindert and Williamson. "? By contrast
1782 representedthe only year outside the 1790sto feature in the ten highest years. Not
surprisingly, the two largest increasesoccurred during the 1790s,when 1795 prices
increasedby 19.84 per cent on those for 1794, and 1793 prices increasedby 11.29
per cent
on those for 1792. This draws into sharp focus the claim of a news editorial in June 1795
that high prices were `within the knowledge of every individual' and explains why
'
18
food
`necessitous
to
the
committees sold
at reduced prices'. The two largest decreases
occurred in the late 1770s,when 1779 prices fell by 12.53 per cent on those for 1778, and
1776 prices fell by 9.64 per cent on those for 1775. Prices therefore fluctuated in both
directions until the 1790s,when steep increasesbegan.
126
TABLE 4: 7: COMPOSITE COST OF LIVING INDEX FOR BRISTOL,

1769-1799 (1791= 100)
Yearly changes-
Year
Index Number*
92.00(25)
1769
87.35 29
1770
94.90 17
1771
99.90 11
1772
99.41 12
1773
97.50 14
1774
94.57 18
1775
85.45 30
1776
92.02 24
1777
92.28 23
1778
80.72 31
1779
88.56 27
1780
93.15 20
1781
101.26(9)
1782
95.74 15
1783
90.25 26
1784
92.77 22
1785
88.33 28
1786
94.91 16
1787
1788
93.05 21
97.70 13
1789
1790
105.58(6)
100.00(lo)
1791
93.90 19
1792
104.50(8)
1793
104.87(7)
1794
1795
125.68(2)
1796
124.35(3)
1797
116.47 5
121.68(4)
1798
1799
127.36(l
Source: Price Index Tables 4:5 and 4: 6.
5.05%
+8.64%
+5.27%
0.49%
1.92%
-3.01%
9.64%
+ 7.69%
+ 0.28%
-12.53%
+ 9.71%
+5.18%
+8.71%
-5.45%
5.73%
+ 2.79%
4.79%
+7.45%
1.96%
+ 5.00%
+ 8.07%
-5.29%
-6.10%
+ 11.29%
+0.35%
+ 19.84%
1.06%
6.34%
+4.47%
+ 4.67%
* Thefigure in bracketsrankstheprice from highestto lowestthroughoutthe thirty-oneyears.
Looking at year-on-yearmovements,in fourteenyearspricesdecreasedfrom the previous

year,while in sixteenyearsthe price increasedover that of the precedingyear.Giventhe
overall large increase,this picture illustrates the extent to which prices fluctuated wildly in
the latter eighteenthcentury.The extentto which thesefluctuationswerecausedby

variationsin the price of wheat,andthereforebread,aredemonstratedin graphs1 and2.
Graph I shows, by comparison to the composite index as a whole, wheat prices increased
anddroppedmoredramatically.Thus,in the earlyto mid-1770swheatpeakedat a higher

level thanthe index,andthenfell to lower levelsin the late 1770sandlate 1780s.Wheat
pricesagainpeakedat muchhigherlevelsthanthe index in the mid to late 1790s.
Fluctuations in the price of wheat, considering that its weighting as the main staple food,
suggeststhat this item substantially influenced the overall trends of the composite index.
This is more clearly illustrated in graph 2 which comparesthe trends for wheat, butter,
cheese,beef, and mutton. Wheat prices clearly fluctuated more wildly than those for any
other item, reaching both the lowest point of any item in 1779, and the highest point of any
127
item in the mid- I790s. The latter figure particularly draws into focus calls in the local press
at the time to save on bread, by using coarser measures of grain or other commodities. The
fact that wheat was not a focus of concern in the local press more often testifies to the
extent to which the civic elite managed prices. Nevertheless, even despite such efforts, in
1795, the highest year for wheat prices, one editorial thought bread to be at its highest price
Graph 1: A Comparison of the Composite Index

and Wheat Index, 1769-1799 (1791=100)
180
160
140
120
E 100
Z
Composite
---f Wheat
80
x
CD
60
c
40
20
0
coo
rr
N-
N1-
Nco
.
r-
g0)
co
0)
0i
"I
0)
0i
I
0)
rrrr
Year
'
lv
Butter was also frequently mentioned,
infinitely
`when the value of money was
greater'.
and graph 2 illustrates that, after wheat, the price of this item also fluctuated a great deal.
Thus, 1777 and 1778 saw the highest prices for butter prior to the 1790s, and a letter
butter
in
1778
being
July
in
Bristol
spoke
of
newspaper
at a price `scarce
published
a
known here at this time of the year'. 120This was also a period of high prices in London
suggestinga correlation between Bristol and London trends. The great concernsexpressed
in Bristol newspapersduring the 1790sabout butter reinforces the importance of butter to
the diet of the whole community. However, the clamour over prices could at times be
concerned with marketing practices that attempted to further enhance the price by, for
example, selling at false weights. In 1783, for example, a medium year for prices, one
writer blamed the practices of èxtortion and forestalling' among traders for high meat and
butter prices, arguing that prices charged during times of scarcity were not lowered
121
Yet graph 2 suggests that, in 1783, butter prices were not high for the period.
afterwards.
This evidence reinforces the perception that butter was an extremely important component
of the everyday diet, especially compared to items like cheese, which despite higher price
1, R
increases in the early 1790s, caused little concern in the press. By contrast, concern over
meat prices peaked alarmingly in 1797 and 1799, both years when beef and mutton
increased dramatically. Reaction to high prices could occur extremely quickly and, at times
Graph 2: Price Index for Five Foodstuffs,

1769-1799 (1791=100)
180
160
140
0 120
-01-f-
100
Wheat
Butter
Cheese
x
0,
80
Beef
--
60
Mutton
40
20
0
(0
U)
N-
ago
(0
rrrrr1r
OD
G)
0)
r-
r-
rn
-
Year
apparently without explanation. Thus, riots over meat prices in June 1795, occurred despite
the fact, as graph 2 illustrates, that the yearly average was not especially high. However, in
June 1795, the average monthly price of beef was 11.5 per cent higher than in any other
month in that year, and this perhaps explains why a crowd burst into the butcher's shop of
Samuel Kindon in Bristol and took meat at prices `they thought fit to offer'. 122
Having constructed an index that utilises as many local prices as possible, it is useful to
compare the Composite Index for Bristol with other, more generalised, studies. Only four
indexes permit comparison for the period between 1769 and 1799, largely because it is the
123
between
1790
1850
`has
These four are the
that
period
and
attracted particular attention'.
indexes provided by Phelps Brown and Hopkins (PBH), Schumpeter and Gilboy (SG),
Tucker (T), and Charles Feinstein, and the results of this comparison are displayed in graph
3.124The first thing to note is the remarkable level of congruity between the indexes. This
vindicates the choice of weights used and prices collected. This correlation is even closer
during the 1770s and especially the 1790s when Bristol prices dominated the index. Given
11)4
from
formed
London
largely
four
indexes
southern
prices, this
and
that the other
were
London
largely
in
those
Bristol
of
trends
mirrored
and southern
that
prices
suggests
125
However, differences do emerge over time. The Bristol Index
England more generally.
index
1769
increased
1799
S-G
From
indexes.
to
drastically
the
less
than
some
accelerated
by 61 per cent, the PBH index by 60 per cent, the Tucker Index rose by 52 per cent, and
Bristol
during
Index
Yet,
by
57.16
this
the
Index
Feinstein
same
period,
rose
the
per cent.
Graph 3: A Comparison of the Bristol Cost of

Living Index with Phelps-Brown and Hopkins
(PBH), Schumpeter-Gilboy (SG), Feinstein (Fe),
(1791=100)
1769-1799
(Tu),
Tucker
and
160
140
120
Bristol
-b-PBH
100
E
x
d
r
SG
80
Fe
60
I -*-Tu
40
20
0
co
r-
ti
OD
OOD co
rn
0i
rn
TTTTTTTTTTT
Year
by just 38 per cent. As a result, while the Bristol Index started in 1769 with prices that
finished
it
in
1799
higher
10
the
than
others,
of
with prices slightly
many
per cent
were
lower than all the others. ' 26These figures merely mask the overall conformity of all five
indexes, as illustrated in graph 3. Thus, between 1780 and 1796 the S-G Index rose by 40
by
40.41
increased
Index
Bristol
per cent, an extremely close
the
per cent while
127
correlation.
A similar story pertains to indexes that covered only part of the period. Thus, the index
based
`southern
Williamson,
by
Lindert
on
urban expenditure weights',
and
compiled
revealed an increase of 31 per cent between 1781 and 1799 while the Bristol index rose by
36 per cent during this time. 128Again, this suggests that Bristol trends mirrored those in the
capital. Feinstein therefore justified his use of a `London series' on the basis that they
no
129
in
àccurately reflect national movements prices. However, the possibility that the
Bristol index hasunderstated

the increasein the costof living is raisedby the GayerRostow-Schwartz (GRS) index, which beganin 1790.The latter showed an increaseof
39.53 per cent between 1790 and 1799,while that for Bristol increasedby only 20.63 per
130
in
cent the correspondingperiod.
Wages and Real Wages

While most previous studies of real wagesconcentrateeither on national averages,London
workers,or on the building trades,this studyoffersa new perspectiveboth in termsof

geographical sampleand in the groups of workers under survey. Of the two Bristol trades
studied here the best evidenceexisted for the tailors. They were paid weekly and
seemingly at a uniform rate. By comparison,shoemakersnot only received piece rates,but
were also paid separaterates for making ladies' shoes,mens' shoes,or boots. As a result,
tailors' weeklyrateswerechosenasa guideto wagetrendsin late eighteenth-century

Bristol. The evidenceariseslargely from wage claims made by journeymen in newspapers,
figures
the
and wage
usedareconsistentlystatedover a periodof twenty-fouryears
between 1773 and 1796. While it could be claimed that this source of information is
biased,
be
unduly
asshall seenin chapter5, masterstook everyopportunityto denounce
information given by journeymen they felt to be false. Despite this willingness to denounce
false information, mastersnever took any exception to statementsof existing rates. This
suggeststhat the wageratesfor Bristol's tailors,in table4:8, werelargely accurate.

The availabledatashowsthatpay in the tailoring tradewas seasonallysplit between
summer and winter. This situation was far from unusual in this period. Adam Smith, for
example, remarked that it was common for there to be a distinction between `summer and
131
`summer
highest'.
Exactly how this split took
winter wages', and that
wages are always
Table 4: 8 : Wages of Bristol Journeymen Tailors, 1773-1796
Year
1773
Wage
12s
Method
Weekly (Summer)
Source
Journeymen
Reference*
FFBJ 10/4/1773
1773
2s
Daily (Summer)
Journeymen
BJ 29/5/1773
1777
1777
1781
1790
1790
1796
1796
12s
14s
14s
14s
2s 4d
14s
Journeymen
Journeymen
Journeymen
Masters
Journeymen
Journeymen
Masters
FFBJ 11/10/1777
FFBJ 11/10/1777
SFBJ 31/3/1781
FFBJ 17/4/1790
BMBJ 17/4/1790
FFBJ 26/3/1796
Bgaz 24/3/1796
Weekly (Winter)
Weekly (Summer)
Weekly (Summer)
Weekly Summer
Daily (Summer)
EWeekly (Summer)
Piece rates introduced
-r or run references see the text.
131
October
had
in
1777
journeymen
that
they
the
stated early
effect was made clear when
132
for
`six Months past'. This datesback to early April,
been on summerpay rates
between
April
October,
the
to
that
and
and
rates
period
pertained
suggesting
summer
found
Nearly
between
April.
the
October
the
to
all
rates
were
and
period
winter ones
in
1777 reveal a twofor
however,
both
rates
and
winter
statements
summer
summer ones,
included
both
1790
in
favour
differential
In
1773
that
statements
a
and
of summer.
shilling
daily and weekly rate suggeststhat Bristol's tailors normally laboured six days in the
day
days
former
in
Thus,
two
shillings
per
the
yielded a weekly
year six
working at
week.
four-pence
in
1790
two
twelve
at
shillings
and
per
week
six-day
while
a
shillings,
sum of
day gave fourteen shillings.
This study has constructedtrends on the basis of data regarding tailors' weekly summer
in
fell
been
in
has
this
This
to
real
wages
or
rose
order
assess
whether
used
material
rates.
is
both
in
Reliance
the
ones,
winter
not
problematic
absenceof
period.
on summer rates,
becauseindexes are designedto illustrate trends rather than absolute amounts, and due to
the fact that there is no reasonto believe that the differential between summer and winter
false
impression
family
full-time
While
a
rather
actual
give
of
male
earnings
rates changed.
income, they offer the most solid method of ascertaining the movement in trends over
time. It matters little whether daily or weekly rates are aggregatedto an annual income, or
do
is
deducted
for
lost
time
then
since
such
variables
not substantially
whether
weeks,
even
133
affect the overall trend.
Given that the wagesrepresentedin table 4: 8 undoubtedly representedthe most optimistic

in
figures
increase
Bristol,
The
tailors'
the
of
are
not
account
earnings
encouraging.
only
in
occurred 1777 when summer weekly rates representeda two-shilling increaseon the 12
shillings which tailors statedthey earnedin 1773. Wages were seemingly stagnant
thereafter between 1777 and 1796.Thus, further statementsin 1781,1790, and 1796 noted
that summer rates were still 14 shillings per week. Evidence about piece-rates in the
shoemakingtrade also suggeststhat wageswere not increasing in line with the cost of
living. Thus, in May 1777 the advertisedpiece rates for men's shoeswere statedat one
shilling and six pence, equating to 9 shillings per week, assuming a standardproduction of
134
item
day
per
one
over a six-day working week. Likewise, JamesLackington, recalling
his time in Bristol during the 1770smaking men's shoes,statedthat 'I could not get more
133
than nine shillings a week'. By March 1796, however, this rate had increasedto one
136
11
ten
and
shilling
pence, representinga weekly wage of
shillings per week. Despite this
132
increase,wage levels did not keep pace with the cost of living. Rather, wagesrose by 22
by
living
35 per cent.
1796,
between
1777
the
rose
costof
and
while
per cent
To ascertainthe level of real wagesbetween 1773 and 1796, the only period in which wage
data was available, it was assumedthat wages in the tailoring trade remained unchanged
between the years in which evidencewas found. This allowed a real wage index to be
be
in
for
between
4:
1773
1796.
This
9 and graph 4.
the
table
seen
can
created
and
period
While overall price movementslargely dictated real wage movements, the higher wage
level in 1777showedits valuein termsof the highestreal wagesof the wholeperiod,aided

by lower prices. Thus, in 1777, the increasenot only kept pace with a 7.69 per cent yearon-year increasein the cost-of-living, but added 8.35 per cent to the value of real wages.
While real wages fell between 1773 and 17961by only 6.73%, the picture is distorted by
the fact that 1773and 1796represented

the third andsecondlowestyearsrespectivelyfor
the entire twenty-four year period. The trend is better representedin graph 4. This shows
that real wageswere low in the very early 1770s,almost as low as the mid-1790s, before
rising steadily throughout the decadeuntil the peak of 1779, when the lowest price year
gavethe highestyearfor real wages.In the very early 1780stherewasa sharpfall,

Table 4: 9 : Real Wages of Bristol Journeymen Tailors, 1773-1796
Year
1773
1774
1775
1776
1777
Money Wages
(1791=100)
85.71
85.71
85.71
85.71
100
Cost of living
(1791=100)
99.41
97.50
94.57
85.45
92.02
Real Wages*
(1791=100)
86.22 22
87.91 21
90.63 20
100.30 14
108.67(5)
1778
100
92.28
108.37(6)
1779
1780
1781
1782
1783
100
100
100
100
100
80.72
88.56
93.15
101.26
95.74
123.89(l)
112,92(3)
107.35(9)
98.76 16
104.4502)
1784
1785
1786
100
100
100
90.25
92.77
88.33
110.80(4)
107.79(7)
113,21(2)
1787
1788
1789
1790
1791
1792
1793
1794
1795
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
94.91
93.05
97.70
105.58
100
93.90
104.50
104.87
125.68
105.36 11
107,47(8)
102.35 13
94.71 19
100(15)
106.50 10
95.69 17
95.36 18
79,57 24
1796
100
124.35
80.42(23)
i ne figure in bracketsdenotesthe rankingof real wages,startingwith the highest.
133
Graph 4: Real Wages Index for Bristol's

Journeymen Tailors (BJT), 1773-1796 (1791=100)
140
120
100
80
---
BJT
60
47
40
20
Cl)
LO
r-
0)
CV)
LO
1-
0)
Cl)
LO
r-
r-
r-
rl-
00
co
co
OD
0)
0)
N- N. N. N- N. N. NYear
followed by a steadiness in the mid-1780s, a slight fall in the late 1780s, a slight upturn in
the early 1790s, and then a drastic downturn in the mid-1790s. Most tellingly 1795 and
1796 represented the two lowest years for real-wages in the entire period. Thus, real wages
fell by 16.56 per cent between 1794 and 1795 alone.
Comparisonswere made with other studiesof real wages.Three other studies exist which
These
1773-1796.
it
to
the
are the studiesby Tucker and
of
period
make possible compare
Schwarz, both of whom usedthe earningsof London building workers, and that by
37
'
Feinstein, who used general averages. The results are shown in graph 5. This shows that
the tailors' higher pay in 1777 gave them a level of real wages favourable to other workers
in the late 1770s and 1780s. They were also on a par with other groups in the late 1780s
and early 1790s, yet their wages dipped more alarmingly than others in the mid-1790s.
Given the congruity between the various cost-of-living indices, this change must have been
the result of variations in wage trends. Tucker's wage index did not rise at all until 1790,
although subsequent rises in the 1790s compared to the stagnation in Bristol meant that the
138
further
behind.
fell
Likewise, the series compiled by Schwarz for the wages
city's tailors
of London bricklayers did not rise until 1793, with the result that the fall in real wages in
"9
by
Bristol's
less
The index compiled by
tailors.
was
severe than that experienced
Feinstein shows the limits of a long-term study of àll manual workers' between 1770 and
1880 and its inability to reveal short-term fluctuations. The graph shows a benign
140
by
indexes.
despite
fluctuations
Thus, a shorter
the
the
steadiness
short
revealed
other
time period, a specific location, and specific wage rates from one group of workers
114
Graph 5: A Comparison of the Real Wages of

Bristol's Journeymen Tailors (BJT), with Indexes
compiled by Tucker (Tu), Feinstein (Fe), and
Schwarz (Sch), 1773-1796 (1791=100)
IIn
--
BJT
-s-
Tu
Fe
Sch
basis,
do
On
this
than
of
all
workers.
general
averages
one could
accuracy
provide greater
take issue with Feinstein's claim that 'earnings kept roughly in step with the cost of
living'. 141According to Feinstein's index, wages increased by 46.84 per cent between 1773
by
1r
larger
Bristol's
1796,
than
this
rise
experienced
wage
any
was
yet
and
1.12
By
tailors.
in
lall
during
hall'of
describes
Schwarz
the
'enormous
real
wage
rates
second
an
contrast,
the eighteenth century'. He argues that 'over three-quarters ofthis
fll' occurred 'betre
1790'. 113According to the data compiled by Neale, which started in 1780, real wages in
Bath fill
by 16 per cent between 1780 and 1796, even though average earnings had
increased by 18 per cent. 144Overall, fluctuating of real wages indicate that Bristol's
tailors,
during
lived
it
how
the
a
period
when
was
uncertain
city's
shoemakers,
and also probably
tar earnings would cover the cost of necessities from year to year.
Conclusion
This chapter reveals that a group of urban journeymen
13ristol'sjoun
with tiimilies to support, such as
have
tailors
would
endured similar levels ufpoverty
cymeii
and shoemakers,
to rural labourers in what was an era of high prices. A major part ofthe artisan's income
would have been spent on his and his family's
diet, while it massive proportion ot'this weis
spent on bread. Evidence from newspapers, together with that From artisan mcnwirs,
strongly matched the DE sample in terms of placing foods in order of' priority.
Income was
therefore mainly expended on necessities such as bread, meat, butter, sugar, and rullcine
135
drinks in that order. Non-food essentialssuch as rent, coal, and candles assumeda higher
from
items
Aside
did
in
in
Bristol
these
than
they
rent
and
coal,
all
rural areas.
share urban
fluctuated in cost before rising dramatically in the 1790s.A strong correlation with other
fate
indicates
living
Bristol
that
a
similar
with the rest of southern
shared
cost of
studies
England, and especially with London. This supportsthe weighting methods of the study,
in
figures,
1780s.
fill
Aside
Bristol
the
to
the
the
especially
and
choice of prices
void of
from an increasein 1777,the wagesof Bristol's tailors stagnatedthroughout the rest of the
food
by
fluctuations
in
determined
that
the
capricious
real wageswere
period, with
result
for
late
1770s
firm
in
Thus,
the
and
most of the 1780s,
prices.
real wageswere relatively
but dropped drastically in the 1790sto levels not seensince the early 1770s.By
comparison, the real wages of London's building workers fared well, until the 1790swhen
pay increaseswere received that made them suffer less from inflation than was the casefor
Bristol's tailors. Given that piece-ratespaid to Bristol's shoemakerswere also stagnant
between 1769 and 1799the living standardsof both the city's tailors and shoemakers
fluctuated wildly for most of the period before falling drastically in the 1790s.Both groups
therefore sharedthe samefate as many workers acrossEngland at this juncture.
136
ENDNOTES
1Seetable 4: 1 for a full reference.The vast majority come from the late 1780s.
2 R. S. Neale, 'The Standardof Living, 1780-1844:a Regional and Class Study', Economic History Review,
19,1966, p. 597.
3 D. Davies, The Caseof Labourers in Husbandry Statedand Considered: with an Appendix containing a
collection of accountsshowing the earnings and expensesof labouring families in different parts of the
kingdom (Bath, 1795; 1977Reprint), pp. 21-22.
4Bonner and Middleton's Bristol Journal (hereafterBMBJ), 24/5/1777; Bristol Journal (hereafterBJ),
29/5/1773.
s Bristol Gazette(hereafterBgaz), 14/9/1797;Sarah Farley's Bristol Journal (hereafter SFBJ), 23/3/1799.
6 J. Lackington, Memoirs of the First Forty-Five Yearsof the Life of JamesLackington, the
present
Bookseller in Chiswell-street,Moorfields, London; Written by Himself (London, 1792) p. 63,61; J. Brown,
Sixty Years' Gleaningsfrom Life's Harvest (Cambridge, 1858), p. 2.
7Davies, Labourers in Husbandry, p. 14.; F. M. Eden, The State of the Poor: or An History of the Labouring
Classesin England,from the Conquestto the Present Period (London, 1797; 1994 Reprint), p. 184.
SBgaz 24/3/1796; Felix Farley 's Bristol Journal (hereafterFFBJ), 26/3/1796. The
shoemakerwage is based
on piece rates of is l Id per shoe,working a 6-day week and producing a shoe per day, a full level of
production.
C. Shammas,The Pre-industrial Consumerin England and America (Oxford, 1990), p. 129. Between 1721
and 1760 food claimed 53% of an unskilled labourer's wage in the South-west, while a South-westmaster
carpenterbetween 1681 and 1780was awarded45.8% of his wage for food. Though the figures are low
comparedto the DE sample in Table 4: 1, it must be rememberedthat they make no mention of family size
and they mostly predate the high inflation of the later 1700s.SeeShammas,p. 128. Wage assessmentsby
Bristol's magistrateshad died out by the latter eighteenthcentury, rendering them obsolete for the purposes
of this study.
10P. Hudson, History by Numbers: An introduction to
quantitative approaches (London, 2000), p. 116. All
methods used to collate indexeswere gleanedfrom chapter 5 of her book, 'Time-series and indices', pp. 109136.
11Shammas,Pre-industrial Consumer,p. 123.
12E. H. Phelps Brown and S. V. Hopkins, `SevenCenturies of the Prices Consumables,
of
comparedwith
Builders' Wage-Rates' in E. M. Carus-Wilson (ed.), Essaysin Economic History: Volume Two (London,
1962), p. 180.; Shammas,Pre-industrial Consumer,p. 124; C. H. Feinstein, 'Pessimism Perpetuated:Real
Wages and the Standardof Living in Britain during and after the Industrial Revolution', TheJournal of
Economic History, 3,58,1998, p. 634. Using DE samplesPBH awarded 81% to food in this period,
Shammasallowed 73%, while Feinstein awarded 69%.
13Davies,Labourersin Husbandry,p. 21.
14C. Petersen,Bread and the British Economy,

c1770-1870 (Aldershot, 1995), p. 4. Bread was far from a
staple food for English workers alone. In eighteenth-centuryFrance for example it was consideredthat 'an
artisan normally spenthalf his wage on bread'. See,G. A. Williams, Artisans and Sans-Culottes:Popular
Movements in France and Britain during the French Revolution (London, 1968; 2"4 Edition, 1989),p. 23; W.
H. Sewell, 'The Sans-CulotteRhetoric of Subsistence'in K. M. Baker (ed.), The French Revolution and the
Creation of Modern Political Culture: VolumeFour, The Terror (Oxford, 1994), p. 261.
15S. Johnson,A Dictionary
of the English Language: Two Volumes(London, 1755; 1983 reprint); D. Defoe,
Moll Flanders (1722; Penguin, 1994 reprint), p. 14.
16E. P. Thompson, 'The Moral Economy the English Crowd in the Eighteenth Century', Past
of
and Present,
50,1971; reprinted in his Customsin Common(Penguin, 1991), p. 189.
17Davies, Labourers in Husbandry, p. 33,31,49.
18Eden, The State of the Poor, p. 435; Johnson,A Dictionary.
19Thompson, 'Moral Economy', p. 190; Petersen,Bread, 4; R. N. Salaman, The History
p.
and Social
Influence of the Potato (Cambridge, 1949; 1985 reprint), p. 480.
20Davies, Labourers in Husbandry, 185; Petersen,Bread, 19.
p.
p.
21Shammas,Pre-industrial Consumer, 126.
p.
22Davies, Labourers in Husbandry, 34.
p.
23Eden, The State the Poor, 267.
of
p.
p.
25Thompson, 'Moral Economy', 206.
p.
26Thompson, 'Moral Economy', 193; Williams, Artisans
p.
and Sans-Culottes,p. 261.
27Thompson, 'Moral Economy', 208.
p.
28S. Poole,'Scarcityandthe Civic Tradition:MarketManagementin Bristol, 1709-1815'

in A. Randalland
A. Charlesworth(eds),Markets,Market Cultureand PopularProtestin Eighteenth-Century
Britain and
Ireland (Liverpool, 1996),p. 110,
137
29Ibid, p. 97.
30Bgaz 26/1/1775,10/8/1775. This no doubt supplementedthe usual supply of corn that arrived from 'the
West Country, Evesham,Hereford, Worcester and Monmouth'. SeePoole, 'Scarcity and the Civic Tradition',
94.
FFBJ 18/7/1795.
32FFBJ 10/2/1776;SFBJ 10/1/1789.
33FFBJ 18/7/1795; SFBJ 18/7/1795;FFBJ 12/10/1799.The saving lay in the fact that superior loaves used
loaves
household
'the
loaves
the
flour',
'finest
the
of
wheat'
and
produce
whole
standard
used
only
while
used the 'coarser parts of the flour'. SeeBgaz 23/7/1795.
34Bgaz 20/8/1795.
35Salaman,History and Social Influence of the Potato, p. 456,460.
36Ibid., p. 503.
37Bgaz 3/12/1772.
38Bgaz 27/4/1775.
39FFBJ 24/2/1776; Bgaz 12/2/1795;FFBJ 2/4/1796.
40Bgaz 4/8/1796; FFBJ 22/2/1800.
41Salaman,History and Social Influence of the Potato, p. 460; Eden, The State of the Poor, p. 137.
42Davies, Labourers in Husbandry, p. 35.
43Salaman,History and Social Influence of the Potato, p. 478. The comment arose from Sir Archibald Grant
in 1756.
asC. Jonesand R. Spang, 'Sans-culottes,sanscaf6, sanstabac: shifting realms of necessity and luxury in
luxury:
Culture
in
Consumer
Consumers
Clifford
(eds),
H.
in
M.
Berg
France'
and
and
eighteenth-century
Europe, 1650-1850 (Manchester, 1999), p. 50.
asSalaman,History and Social Influence of the Potato, pp. 505-506.
46BMBJ 14/6/1777.
47Davies, Labourers in Husbandry pp. 31-32.
48Ibid., p. 49.
49Ibid., p. 161,19.
soEden, The State of the Poor, p. 280,16.
51Poole, 'Scarcity and the Civic Tradition', p. 100.
52Bgaz 13/2/1772.
S' Bgaz 11/8/1796.
saFFBJ 10/2/1776; SFBJ 10/1/1789; Bgaz 12/2/1795.
ssBgaz 4/6/1795; Bristol Mercury (hereafterBmere), 15/6/1795.
56Poole, 'Scarcity and the Civic Tradition', p. 101.
s' Brown, Sixty Years Gleanings, pp. 28-29,47-48.
58W. E. Winks, Lives oflllustrious Shoemakers(London, 1883), p. 29.
59Ibid., p. 164.
60FFBJ6/2/1796.
61This is no less true if the lack of accuracyarises from the structure of questioning, rather than in the
answers,as it would neverthelessstill show that eighteenth-centurypeople grouped thesecommodities
together.
62According to Shammasthe price of sugar fell by half in the seventeenthcentury and then by 'another third'
between 1700 and 1750,while sugar imports for 'home consumption' rose from 8.231bper capita in 1710-19
to 24.161bin 1790-9. Shammas,Pre-industrial Consumer,pp. 81-82.
63Shammas,
Pre-industrialConsumer,pp. 81-82.Sugarhadalsobecomea commoditythat wasmass
that cafeau laic
consumedin Franceduringthe sameperiod,asJonesandSpanghavedemonstrated
(sugar/coffee)hadbecome'the daily breakfastof theurbanworker' before1789.See,JonesandSpang,
'shifting realmsof necessityandluxury', p. 40.
6' Jonesand Spang, 'shifting realms of necessityand luxury', p. 53.

65Shammas,Pre-industrial Consumer,p. 111.
66R. Southey,Lettersfrom England (London, 1807; 1951 edition
edited with introduction by J. Simmons), p.
87. Thus the 'tea duty' rose from 12'/: % between 1784-1795to 50% between 1795-1801.
67Davies, Labourers in Husbandry, p. 38.
68Eden, State of the Poor, p. 229,280.
69Brown, Sixty Years Gleanings, pp. 23-24,28-29; Winks, Lives Illustrious Shoemakers, 27.
of
p.
70Winks, Lives Illustrious Shoemakers, 29.
of
p.
71Davies, Labourers in Husbandry, 32.
p.
72FFBJ 18/7/1778.
73SFBJ26/7/1783.
74SFBJ 1/5/1790; FFBJ 18/4/1795; Bgaz 21/1/1796.
75Bgaz 11/5/1797.
76SFBJ21/12/1799.
" Davies,Labourers
in Husbandry,
p. 149,137,141.
138
78Eden, TheState the Poor, p. 229,280.

of
79Brown, Sixty YearsGleanings,
pp. 23-24,228-229.
80Eden, TheState of the Poor, p. 12,147,185,210,224,273,537.
$' Davies, Labourers in Husbandry,
pp. 37-38.
82Eden, The State the Poor, p. 148,229.
of
83Southey,Lettersfrom England, 88. John Brown's
p.
referencesto beer are really too numerousto note.
84Annual Register, 1800, Vol. 42, 319.
p.
86BJ 20/7/1771.
87SFBJ 24/4/1790.
88L. D. Schwarz,London in the
age of industrialisation: Entrepreneurs, labour force and living conditions,
1700-1850 (Cambridge, 1992),p. 172.
89Phelps Brown and Hopkins, 'Seven Centuriesof the Prices of Consumables', p. 180.
9M. D. George,London Life in the Eighteenth Century (London, 1925), 167. Thus the
p.
saddlersrequested
a weekly wage of 20s 6'/2d, expecting to spend4s 1Is on bread, equivalent to 24%.
9' While no Bristol prices survive for 1779, London
wheat prices per bushel were only two-and-a-quarter
pence more expensivethan those at Gloucesteron average.There is little reasonto doubt that Bristol prices
were at a similar level. SeeC. W. J. Granger and C. M. Elliott, 'A Fresh Look at Wheat Prices and Markets
in the Eighteenth Century', Economic History Review, 20,1967, p. 264. (for London); E. W. Gilboy, Wages
in Eighteenth-Century England (Cambridge, Mass., 1934) pp. 289-90 (for Gloucester).
92FFBJ 11/10/1777.
93BMBJ 10/5/1777.
95Neale, à Regional and Class Study, 599.
p.
96Neale, à Regional and Class Study', 599; Schwarz,London in the
p.
age of industrialisation, p. 172.
97Neale, 'a Regional
and Class Study', p. 599; PhelpsBrown and Hopkins, 'Seven Centuries of the Prices of
Consumables',p. 180.
98George, London Life, p. 167.
99Ibid.
' J. Burnett,A History of the Costof Living (London,1969;1993

reprint),p. 186.
10'
P. H. Lindert and J. G. Williamson, 'English Workers' Living Standardsduring the Industrial Revolution:
A New Look', Economic History Review, 36,1, February 1983, p. 9.
102Schwarz,London in the age of industrialisation, 175; R. S. Tucker, 'Real Wages Artisans in London,
p.
of
1729-1935' in A. J. Taylor (ed.), TheStandard of Living in Britain in the Industrial Revolution (London,
1975), p. 25.
104Brown, Sixty Years Gleanings, p. 27; George,London Life, 92.
p.
'osGeorge,London Life, p. 167; i3MBJ 10/5/1777;FFBJ 11/10/1777.
106M. W. Flinn, `Trends in Real Wages, 1750-1850', Economic History Review, 27,1974, 402.; Lindert
p.
and Williamson, 'English Workers' Living Standards',p. 9.
107Neale, 'a Regional and Class Study',
pp. 598-599.
108Feinstein, 'Pessimism Perpetuated', 638.
p.
109George,London Life, 92.
p.
110Lackington, Memoirs, 197.
p.
11 Ibid.
12Bgaz24/3/1796.
13 Davies, Labourers in Husbandry, 21; Eden, State the Poor,

p.
of
p. 184. Even in 1797 coal only cost 3' /2d
per bushel in Bristol.
14Feinstein, `PessimismPerpetuated', 636.
p.
"S Thus Lindert and Williamson
concluded that 'there is no alternative' to using wholesale prices since retail
prices rarely exist, while Schwarz posited that lack of retail prices has engendereda reliance on `wholesale
prices'. SeeLindert and Williamson, Ènglish Workers' Living Standards', p. 8.; L. D. Schwarz, 'The
Standardof Living in the Long Run: London, 1700-1860,Economic History Review, 38,1985, 27.
p.
116
Feinstein,'PessimismPerpetuated',
636.
p.
"'
Lindert and Williamson, Ènglish Workers' Living Standards', p. 11.

18 Bmerc 1/6/1795,
19 Bmerc 20/7/1795.
120FFBJ 18/7/1778.
121SFBJ 26/7/1783.
122Bmerc 15/6/1795.
'Z' Lindert andWilliamson,'EnglishWorkers'Living Standards', 8. The

p.
authorsincludeGayer-RostowSchwartz,Silberling,andRousseaux
amongthem,andso arethereforebeyondcomparison,
124
PhelpsBrown andHopkins,`SevenCenturiesof the Pricesof Consumables', 195-196.;The
pp.
Schumpeter-Gilboy
Indexwastakenfrom M. J. Daunton,Progressand Poverty:An Economic Social
and
139
History of Britain, 1700-1850(Oxford, 1995),p. 579; Tucker, 'Artisans in London', pp. 28-29; Feinstein,
'Pessimism Perpetuated',pp. 652-653. Feinstein's study beganin 1770, so the figure for this year was
repeatedfor 1769. Unfortunately other indexesdid not have the requisite time-span. The index provided by
Lindert and Williamson (L&W) only beganin 1781,while the Gayer-Rostow-Schwartz(GRS) index only
index
Standards',
GRS
Living
in
11,
1790.
See
Workers'
Lindert
Williamson,
'English
the
p.
and
and
started
in Daunton, Progress and Poverty, p. 580.
125Thus Phelps-Brown and Hopkins usedvarious sourcesfrom 'Southern England', seetheir 'Seven
Centuries of the Prices of Consumables,p. 193; Tucker basedhis on London hospital records, seehis
'Artisans in London', p. 24; Feinstein also largely used London and institutional prices for food, seehis
'Pessimism Perpetuated',p. 636.
126Phelps Brown and Hopkins, 'Seven Centuriesof the Prices of Consumables', pp. 195-196;Daunton,
Progress and Poverty, p. 579 (for S-G Index); Tucker, 'Artisans in London', pp. 28-29; Feinstein,
'Pessimism Perpetuated',pp. 652-653.
127Daunton, Progress and Poverty, p. 579.
128Lindert and Williamson, 'English Workers' Living Standards',p. 11.
129Feinstein, 'Pessimism Perpetuated',p. 636.
130SeeDaunton, Progress and Poverty, p. 580.
131A. Smith, The Wealth of Nations, Books I-III (1776; 1970 edn.), p. 176.
132FFBJ 11/10/1777.
133One wonders why Lindert and Williamson calculatedyearly rateswhen they admitted that 'the choice of
numbers of weeks per year is arbitrary and matterslittle to what follows'. SeeLindert and Williamson,
'English Workers Living Standards',p. 3.
134BMBJ 10/5/1777.
136Bgaz 24/3/1796.
137Tucker, 'Artisans in London', p. 26,28; Schwarz, 'The Standardof Living in the Long Run', p. 40.
Schwarz borrowed earningsof London bricklayers compiled by Phelps Brown and Hopkins. Considering the
close correlation betweenthe graph-lines of Schwarzand Tucker, it is ironic that Schwarz consideredthat
Tucker's index was 'open to very seriousobjections indeed' since they were 'not representativefor London'.
Schwarz, p. 25; Feinstein, 'Pessimism Perpetuated',pp. 652-653.
138Tucker, 'Artisans in London', p. 28.
139Schwarz, 'The Standardof Living in the Long Run', p. 37.
140Feinstein, `PessimismPerpetuated,p. 631.
141
Ibid., p. 642.
142
Ibid., pp. 652-653.
143Schwarz, 'The Standardof Living in the Long Run', p. 28.
144Neale, 'a Regional and Class Study', p. 600.
140
PART THREE: AGENCY: THE ENTRY OF ARTISANS INTO THE

'PUBLIC SPHERE'
141
CHAPTER 5: NEGOTIATING
THE PUBLIC SPHERE, THE `RHETORIC OF
NEED' AND WAGE BARGAINING IN BRISTOL, 1770-1800

This chapter analysescollective bargaining techniquesused by Bristol's tailors in 1773,
1777,1781,1790, and in 1796, and by the city's shoemakersin 1777 and 1792.These
from
demands,
evidence
of
which
survives
various
action
witnessed
over
wage
strike
years
in
local
by
journeymen
This
the
press.
method of
and
masters
announcementsplaced
history.
labour
bargaining
has
been
by
Yet,
the
studies
of
overlooked
previous
collective
insertions detail numerousgrievancesand offer a number of new perspectivesfor
invites
for
in
The
the
press
analysis,
provincial
airing of grievances
consideration.
burgeoning
`public
between
the
the
urban
culture
or
artisansand
example, of
engagement
sphere' of the period. The bargaining consciousnessof these artisans can be viewed
through the prism of their own collective language.It needsto be asked to what extent the
journeymen primed their demandswith the public platform of the press in mind. The
in
the
therefore
themes
that
across
arose
period,
preferenceto
chapter
addressesvarious
individual
first
issue
in
for
The
that
years.
a
approach
action
using narrative
chronicles
discussion relates to concern over food prices and the recurring use of this reason for
greaterwages is assessedin the light of the material position of journeymen, discussedin
chapter four. This chapterwill consider whether referencesto poverty and food prices
indicated real need or constituted an engagingtactic for `public' consumption. The chapter
then moves on to discussspecifically trade-relatedissues,including the effect of organised
unions on thesedisputes. Such issuesinclude the timing of disputes and their relation to
seasonaltrends within a trade, the strength of the journeymen's organisations and the funds
they collected, and how they sought to control the labour supply during disputes.
Before discussion of thesethematic issuescan begin, it is necessaryto establishwhether
the newspaperevidencerepresentedoccurrencesof industrial action, rather than just
for
requests higher pay. In 1773the journeymen tailors reported that due to the stand-off
over wage levels there were àbove one hundred out of Employ in this City', while
William Merryman, mastertailor, informed customersthat `the present Stop in his Branch
'
Business'
òn
Journeymen
Wages'.
the
In October 1777
of
was
account of
advancing their
the journeymen tailors reported that `there are at present upwards of 200 out of Employ in
2
City'
due
this
to the wage claim. The 1781 agitation was also clearly a strike becausethe
masterssought to recruit 200 new journeymen at a time when the latter urged tailors
elsewhereto give the city a wide berth. In 1790 a letter to the press from an anonymous
writer made it clear that the tailors were on strike. The writer warned mastersthat 'if the
142
fair
losing
deal
is
`you
then
chance
a
of
a
great
of
settled'
will stand
matter not speedily
Tripp,
business'
In
1796
Robert
`Bath
'London'.
to
master tailor, statedthat the
and
your
Bristol `Journeymenrefused to work at their former prices', suggestingan all-out strike
5
in
journeymen
in
full
flow.
Bristol's
clearly
on strike 1777because
shoemakerswere
was
the city's masterssought one thousandmen to replacethem, and apologised to their
customersfor the ùnavoidableDelays' that the actions of the `Journeymenhave
6
ladies'
it
had
1792
Bristol's
In
May
that
shoemakers
gone on
was
also
clear
occasioned'.
imposition
òf
because
journeymen
`the
their
the
that
such
of
employers'
stated
was
strike,
7
a nature as obliges them to quit their work' until their wageswere raised. In mid July 1792
8
for
is
I1
had
There
`stood
these
the shoemakersreported that they
weeks
past'.
out now
little doubt that in theseinstancesthe journeymen were clearly on strike in the fullest
in
The
fact
journeymen
local newspapers
to
their
that
advertise
grievances
chose
sense.
draws attention to the developing importance of newspapersas a meansof communication
in late eighteenth-centuryBristol.
The Public Sphere
The development of newspaperscan be linked to the growth of a `public sphere' in the

eighteenth century. It was the German thinker JurgenHabermaswho developed this idea,
believing that `traffic in news developedalongside the traffic in commodities' as the
expansionof distant markets `required more frequent and exact information about distant
9
events'. According to Habermas,the genesisof this public dissemination of news dated to
`the end of the seventeenthcentury' although the phrase `public sphere' only enteredthe
German vocabulary `during the eighteenthcentury'. In England the term `public opinion'
did not become current ìn the secondhalf of the eighteenth century'. 10Habermas'swork
hashada major impacton socialandcultural history in the last twenty

"
years. GivenHabermas'sargumentthat it wasthe `greattradecities' that became`centers
for the traffic in news', the developmentof a vibrant provincial 'public sphere' in
12
be
is
Bristol
to
eighteenth-century
expected. Bristol's journeymen were therefore
engaging with this growing `public sphere' when they placed advertisementsin the late
eighteenth century. However, Habermasdid not foreseethe involvement of working men
in the `public sphere', since his theory emphasisedthe idea of a `bourgeois public
13
sphere'. Craig Calhoun arguesthat this approachneglected the sensein which `social
movements' were able to alter the àgendaof public discourse', and that Habermasshowed
an ìnattentionto agency'andthe mannerin which historicalactorsàctivelymadeand

14
discourse.
their
As a result,Calhouncalledfor a more `pluralistic'
remade'
public
143
'5
been
developed
by
in
has
Geoff
Eley,
This
`public
the
to
the
approach
conceptof
sphere'.
in
England
`distinctively
Eley
that
public
sphere'
arose
working-class
a
particular;
argues
between 1816 and 1848,although the developmentitself is linked by Eley to `the
16
in
doubt
Bristol
1790s.
While
Eley's
the
are
conclusions
no
valid,
general
experiencesof
have
in
least
involvement
`public
to
the
the
appears
sphere'
predatedthe
of
working
at
men
1790s.This is not surprising considering the growth of provincial newspapersthroughout
the eighteenthcentury, as this medium clearly representeda path to a wide audience.
Between 1700 and 1760 òne hundred and thirty different newspapershad been started'
acrossthe country, while Bristol provides `the earliest extant copy' of a provincial paper
dating from 1704.'7 In tandemwith this the `circulation of newspapersdoubled' between
1753 and 1792 as newspaperscameto be read by ever wider sections of eighteenth-century
'8
society.
All this suggeststhat Bristol journeymen, by inserting their claims in the press,would have
in
distribution
The
Bristol
Mercury
the
cycle
a
varied
and
growing
audience.
of
reached
1792, marketed throughout Somerset,Gloucestershire,Wiltshire, South Wales, London,
York, Liverpool, Manchester,Birmingham, Oxford, and Cambridge, is illustrative. 19
Bristol newspapersalso offered a particularly useful medium for the city's journeymen
becauseby the 1750sBristol's newspapershad become `virtually trade paperswith their
20
local
trade and commerce'. It was in this context then that
main emphasisupon
journeymen took the opportunity to put forward their own opinions on matters that affected
them. In this light, the use of insertions in the provincial newspaperpress offers a new and
fruitful perspective on eighteenth-centurylabour disputes.Historians have paid, at best,
limited attention to this phenomenonin the past. Thus, for example, While John Rule notes
that journeymen such as the Exeter wool-sorters used newspaperinsertions in 1787, he
does not fully analysethis facet of artisanal agitation.21
By placing adverts in the public domain the journeymen were inviting public interest in
their disputes.After all, masterscould have been approachedprivately and without the use
of such public advertisement.The fact that insertions cost four shillings apiece confirms
that this strategy was important to the journeymen.22Advertising their grievancesin public
had a definite purpose, and Bristol's shoemakersand tailors made it abundantly
clear that it
was the `Public' that they were addressing.In 1773, for example, Bristol's journeymen
tailors statedtheir casefor higher wagesand added that they `therefore submit it to the
Candour of the Public'. In October 1777, they again felt it `necessary'to `lay their Case
before the Public.
In 1790, Bristol's tailors likewise hoped that a full account of their
144
2.4
1796,
In
tailors
Public
the
`satisfy
made
an
for
the
candid
would
striking
reason
Àddress to the Public' on the refusal of their wage claim, in which they statedthat they
`trust that the generousPublic will support a cause which will appearand be explained in
fight
for
25
during
their
the
Bristol's
future
public ear
shoemakersalso sought
paper'.
a
looked
journeymen
their
to
1777
in
1792.
In
1777
the
convey
and
greater remuneration
`Sentiments' to the `Public', reassuringthem that they wished to act `very far from any
26
Thing that is riotous or combined'. In 1792Bristol's ladies shoemakersfelt `compelledto
inform the Public' of their need for a wage increasewhile the city's boot-makersfelt that
27
(sic)'
impartial
Public
`propriety compelled' them to `lay their casebefore a candid and
The use of such methods of collective bargaining by Bristol's shoemakersand tailors was,
in fact, far from unique. London's tailors had, for example,used such methods in 1756, as
had Bath's shoemakersin 1792.28Journeymenwere clearly seeking to gain the public ear
lain
have
for
desire
Firstly,
factors
public approval may
explain why this was so.
and two
in the fact that unlike populations of colliers or woollen workers, each trade in Bristol was
Tailors
by
the
the
demographic
in
terms
of
populace.
rest
and outnumbered
relatively small
by
described
the
therefore
and
colliers
outworking weavers
unlike
and shoemakerswere
Dobson: groups such as theseformed an 'isolated mass' of people that lived in `separate
29
According
to
`few
in
to
there
mediate
conflicts'.
neutrals
were
which
communities'
Poole, West Country weaversand miners could also organise as whole communities, again
in contrast to the `mixed artisan trades', and so it was unnecessaryfor such groups to court
30
3
bargaining
As
`formidable
their
reveals,
chapter
power'.
collective
public support given
level
in
Bristol,
journeymen
this
tended
to
of
areas
certain
of
concentrate
although
in
dominate
Even
those
their own
to
totally
areas.
concentration was never such as
`districts', they were still outnumberedby the rest of the local populace. In London,
lived
in
by
tailors
areas
other sectionsof
surrounded
also
and shoemakers
artisans such as
the urban poor, with the result that the workshop and the pub `defined their community'
31
rather than the street. By contrast, in some Lancashiretextile villages, marriage registers
listed between one-third and one-half of couples as handloom weavers, revealing
32
èxtremely cohesive' communities. In Bristol therefore the `community' was comprised
of many different occupations,in marked contrast to weaving and mining villages.
Secondly, the refusal of mastersto accedeto wage claims also accounts for the adoption of
this strategy. The fact that Bristol's mastertailors and shoemakersseldom looked
favourably on the claims of their journeymen made it necessaryfor the latter to seek
support among the wider `public'. Whereasgroups such as weavers and miners were more
145
likely to expresstheir grievancesin forms of crowd activity, Bristol's journeymen, as a
resultof the city's socialdemography,

weremorelikely to seeka public forum in which to
disputes.
It is worth delineatingtheresponses
express
of mastersin orderto understandthe
climate in which journeymen expressedtheir claims. Table 5: 1 lists the main responsesof
mastersduring the wage disputes.It would appearthat Bristol's masterswere, in general,
not overly receptive to wage claims in the tailoring and shoemakingtrades. Indeed, only in
Table 5: 1 : Response of Masters to Pay Claims of Bristol's Tailors and Shoemakers^
Trade and
Year
Labour
sought
Duration of
appeal
1773
Tailors
1777
Tailors
1781
Tailors
1790
Tailors
1796
Tailors
100 Men
Unknownnu
mber
200 Men
1777 Shmakes
% of
Masters
Masters
advertise
Consent
% of
Masters
April - July
Masters
advertise
refusal
-
October
April - May
200 Men
April - May
250 Men
March May
11 Master
31/3/1796
42 Master
7/4/1796
32 Master
17/5/1777
12.36%*
47.19%*
12.40%**
16Master
13.22%**
31.82%*
14/6/1777
13 Master
7/7/1792
19.70%*
1,000Men
June
15Master
1792 ShMakers
Unknown
number
May - June
21/6/1777
21 Master
5/5/1792
26.45%**
A For a full list of references please refer to the text.
* Based on figures collated from Mathews's Bristol Directory, 1793-4 (Bristol, 1794).
** Based on figures collated from Sketchley'sBristol Directory 1775 (1971 reprint).
two shoemakingdisputesdid any number of mastersagreepublicly to a rise, and even in

these casesno more than 20 per cent of mastersacceded.Master tailors never publicly
acceded.Their usual responsewas to place adverts for labour to replace the men on strike.
In 1773, for example, Bristol's mastertailors advertised for 100journeymen every week
for a period of three months in three separatenewspapers.33This set the tone for later
tailors' disputes. Thus, in 1777, àny number of good Workmen' were advised to apply to
the mastersfor ìmmediate and constantEmploy', and in 1781 `TWO HUNDRED
JOURNEYMEN TAYLORS (sic)' were sought for `constant Employ'. 34This latter
insertion ran for six weeks. In the disputesof 1790 and 1796
collective meetings of masters
to discussdemandswere publicly advertised,presumably in order to galvanise
and
demonstratethe collective strength of the employers. In April 1790, the `MASTER
TAYLORS of this City (sic)' were invited to attend a meeting in
order to `take into
consideration the present demandof the Journeymenfor a further advance of their
35
wages'. A meeting also took place in 1796 when an unspecified number of masters
146
36
for
demand
by
made the Journeymen advanceof wages'
assembledto consider `the
These meetings endedin the refusal of the journeymen's claims. In 1790, the masters
(sic)'
be
TAYLORS
for
HUNDRED
JOURNEYMEN
`TWO
to
who
were
advertised
in
`250
1796
ìmmediate
an
advertisement
sought
given
and constantemploy', and
37
(sic)'.
Both
JOURNEYMEN
theseadvertswere repeatedlypublished.
In common with tailors, mastershoemakerssought labour that was clearly intended to
Thousand
Men' were requested:the
in
disputes.
1777,
Òne
In
June
involved
those
replace
38
demands
be
of the war.
massivenumber of strike-breakersrequired can attributed to the
In 1792, Bristol's master shoemakerscalled for `steady,sober and industrious Men' to
`meet with constant and full employ' in both the shoeand boot-making branches,without
39
specifying the number required. Furthermore,in the shoemakingtrade, masterspublished
their explicit refusals of their journeymen's claims in the newspapers(seetable 5: 1). In
1777, for example, thirty-two master shoemakersinitially opposedthe claim in this way,
listed
in
directory4
26.45
In 1792,
trade
contemporary
a
representing
per cent of masters
twenty-one masterslikewise signed a notice denying the validity of the men's claim,
1
31.82
per cent of the city's master shoemakers. In 1796, eleven
representingaround
master tailors signed their namesto a refusal. A week later this had risen to forty-two
42
in
12.36
47.19
All this
Bristol
per cent respectively of masters
names,representing
and
in
both
trades were organised in order to
that
suggests
a significant minority of masters
deny the claims of the journeymen.
Given that varying levels of opposition from masterswere evident in all sevendisputes
under consideration, it is hardly surprising that insertions in the newspaperpressbecamea
field
veritable
of battle. In 1773 and again in 1777,journeymen tailors askedthe public to
3
`whether
blame'
for
Masters
impasse.
In 1790, the tailors
they
to
the
the
consider
are
or
claimed `the public have been informed' by the mastersthat they wished to have wages
àdequateto the Wages in London', a claim that was `false' since they only required a
`small advance' of two-pence per day. 4 In 1792, Bristol's journeymen boot-makers
attributed their reasonfor inserting their demandsto a `false assertion of their
Employers'. 5 Masters, however, were also adept in this war of words. In a general
insertion, the master tailors accusedjourneymen in 1796 of imposing the `most palpable
46
`the
Public'.
In 1777,Bristol's master shoemakerswere especially
misrepresentations'on
intransigent in their use of language.They claimed that the ùsual Wages' their
of
journeymen were `sufficient to maintain any sober Family', stating that `the
presentwages
are sufficient for those that are industrious' and claiming that the `great Majority of the
147
Masters are steadily resolved not to comply with the Demandsof their Men'. 47In 1777,
blame
journeymen
looking
the
to
to
when
masterswere also clearly
publicly apportion
48
hurt
home
àn
Advance
Wages
Customers'.
In 1792,
their
they mentioned that
of
would
Bristol's master shoemakersonce more adamantlydeclaredthat the current wageswere
`sufficient to maintain any sober family'. 9
The attitudes of masters,particularly in the shoemakingtrade, to issuesof sobriety and
industriousness,were representativeof more widespreadattitudes to work in the eighteenth
century. Thus, a fairly `broad consensus'appearedto hold that `the higher the wages
labourers and artisansreceived the less they worked' on the grounds that `high wagesbred
laziness,disorderlinessand debauchery'while `low wagesbred industry and diligence'. 50
Thus Bernard Mandeville, for example,felt that if journeymen can `by Four Days Labour
in a Week maintain themselves(they) will hardly be persuadedto work the fifth's' Bristol
masters,whether from genuineconcern or self-interest, were, therefore, echoing wider
notions when they argued that greaterwageswould induce more `lengthy and frequent
52
in
be
`likely
to promote conspiracy'. Neverthelesswhile some
sojourns the alehouse' and
eighteenth-centurycontemporariesmay have believed that there was à strong relationship
between increasing reward and decreasingeffort', Hatcher has recently argued that this
does not necessarilymean `that such a relationship existed in practice'. 53Rule also
contendsthat thesethemesshould be interpreted in terms of a ùtility of poverty' theory
54
idea
independent
degree
its
`to
truth'. According to
and concludesthat the
was
a
of
Hatcher, moreover, by `the 1760sand 1770s' concern among economic writers was not so
much centred upon `high wages' and ìdleness' but upon `high prices' and the ìnability of
ss
working people to purchasean adequatesubsistence'. In this regard, and in the face of
the intransigenceof many masters,it is not surprising that journeymen made repeated
referenceto the high prices of the period.
The Rhetoric of Need

The manner in which referencesto high prices were expressedwas far from disparate,
either between trades or over the years. Indeed,journeymen used rather formulaic and
recurrent language,forming an idiom that can for convenience be called a `rhetoric of
need'. The use of a recurring form of rhetoric bears out John Rule's maxim that workers
over the years `preservedin experienceand tradition a sufficient knowledge of possible
forms of action.
While this rhetorical idiom was no doubt easy to replicate as a
bargaining tool, the need was, however, all too real as the evidence of
rising prices over the
thirty years, discussedin chapter 4, has shown. When Adam Smith noted that the `high
148
journeymen
justify
by
ùsual
to
the
pretences'used
price of provisions' were among
57
had
hollow
it
labour',
`the
a
ring.
their
suggeststhat such claims
of
price
raising
However, Smith did allow that wagesshould be `sufficient to maintain' a man and allow
`him to bring up a family', an endeavourthat was becoming harder if concernsvoiced over
58
believed.
The
high prices in the late eighteenth-centurynewspapersare to be
developmentof a `rhetoric of need', by journeymen must, therefore, be set in the context of
developing concern among wide sectionsof society over high prices in this period.
In 1773, Bristol's journeymen tailors made frequent referenceto the àdvancedPrice of
Provisions' in their quest for higher wages,while the refusal of mastersto raise wagesover
from
labour'
`still
the
led
journeymen
they
four-month
to
that
the
claim
a
period
S9
journeymen
'the
.
1777,
In
long
tailors
have
`Hardships they
cited
again
of
complained
6
during
their wage agitation. Such languageset the tone
Dearnessof every Article of Life'
for many of the referencesmade to prices in the period. While the tailors made referenceto
the `dearnessof provisions' in 1790, in 1796 their claim arose from à senseof their Wages
61
In
1777,
Necessaries
Life'
dearness
Provisions
being
the
to
of
and
other
of
adequate
not
Bristol's journeymen shoemakerslamentedthe declining purchasing power of their wages.
They opined that provisions are àt an exorbitant Price' compared to `sixteen Years ago'
62
Bristol's
In
1792,
in
Pair
than
`considerably
this
time'.
at
more every
when wageswere
boot-makers talked of the èxorbitant price of provisions and the dearnessof house-rent',
ladies'
for',
families
had
`large
fact
to
the
the
that
men
provide
while
men
and
many
decently
`they
that
and comfortably support
cannot
really
reported
without a raise
63
families'.
In June 1792,the boot-makersand ladies shoemakersjointly
themselvesand
reiterated that their demandwas `not at all unreasonableconsidering the dearnessof
64
families'.
1796,
In
towards
the
maintenance
our
of
and
other
article
provisions
every
Bristol's boot-makers and men's shoemakerslamented that their wages were insufficient to
`support a wife and perhapsa family in this seasonof general distress', when `most of the
5
necessariesof life are raised in price three times as much as they were some time since'.
While high prices, therefore, clearly formed a major component of the bargaining stanceof
Bristol's shoemakersand tailors, it was a tactic which was also used by London's tailors in
1772 and in 1800, and by Bath's shoemakersin 1792.66Journeymen in other Bristol trades
likewise utilised this `rhetoric of need' during a variety of industrial disputes between the
1770sand the 1790s.In 1776, for example, Bristol's carpentersargued that `their present
Wages (were) insufficient to support them and their Families', while in 1799 the carpenters
again drew attention to `the advancedprice of every article and necessaryof life' in pursuit
149
7 The perception that food prices were outstripping earningswas,

higher
of
wages.
therefore, a common one among Bristol's artisans.
Neither was the idea that wage levels had not kept pace with price levels confined to
journeymen themselves.The Berkshire rector, David Davies had found `labouring
families' in his parish to be ìndifferently fed' and 'badly clothed'. He could not attribute
the causeto underemploymentor drinking but in the men's own words to the fact that,
68
Writing in 1792, a writer to a Bath
live".
is
dear,
hardly
"Every thing so
that we can
paper also mirrored the concernsof journeymen concerning low real wages. He felt that
the `discontent of the Handicrafts' was due to a situation in which `not having any advance
for
for
`pay
`more
50
the articles of life' now as
than
they
much
as
years past'
of wages'
ìn reality was not more than half their value at that period' 69 Adam Smith also believed
that wages did not `fluctuate with the price of provisions', and that `the money price of
labour remains uniformly the samesometimesfor half a century together'.70Smith was
writing in 1776 and remarkedthat `the high price of provisions during these ten years past
has not in many parts of the kingdom been accompaniedwith any sensible rise in the
71
labour'.
money price of
Having establishedthat the `rhetoric of need' formed a popular part of the collective
bargaining consciousnessof eighteenth-centuryBristol journeymen, it is important to
assessthe relationship betweenthis rhetoric and the actual material position of journeymen
when claims were being made. Did, for example,the standardof living fall immediately
prior to labour agitation? By comparing the timing of the disputes with trends represented
in the cost of living index (table 4:7), the effect of prices upon wage claims can be gauged.
During their 1773 agitation the tailors did not appearto be dealing in empty-handed
rhetoric. Between 1770 and 1773 the cost of living had risen by 13.81 per cent; thesewere
the secondand third highest years for the cost of living in the 1770sand 1780s.In terms of
tailors' real wages (table 4: 8), 1773 was only lower than 1795 and 1796 in the whole
between
1773 and 1796.72In 1777, a year when both tailors and shoemakerswere
period
actively making claims, the situation is less clear. The cost of living was fairly low in this
year; 7.43 per cent less than it had been in 1773. However, this is misleading for 1776 was
the secondlowest year for the thirty-year period, and so in the short term 1777 prices had
risen by 7.69 per cent on those of the previous year. Short-term fluctuations, therefore,
while not perhapsa primary cause,could also form the backdrop to action. While 1781
prices were fairly medium-range, low prices in 1779 and 1780 meant that between 1779
and 1781 the cost of living had risen by 15.4 per cent. In 1781, the real wages of tailors had
150
fallen 13.35per cent on those of 1779,and 4.93 per cent on those of 1780. In 1781,
therefore, short-term fluctuations formed the immediate context of the journeymen's
in
journeymen.
directly
the
the
though
rhetoric
of
mentioned
prices were not
action, even
By contrast, 1790, the year of anothertailor agitation, witnessed a far clearer correlation.
1790 was the sixth-highest year for prices over the entire thirty-year period. The cost of
living increasedby 8.07 per cent between 1789 and 1790, and by 13.47 per cent between
1788 and 1790.The real wagesof tailors decreasedby 11.87 per cent between 1788 and
1790, and by 7.46 per cent between 1789and 1790.In 1796,the cost of living was at its
third highest of the period while 1795,the previous year, had seenthe secondhighest price
levels. As a result, between 1794 and 1796,the cost of living increasedby 18.58 per cent,
by
between
Rising
have
32.43
1792
1796.
therefore,
prices,
a very
and
could
and
per cent
journeymen
disposition
to take action. Thus, use of rhetoric of high
the
effect
on
real
of
in
journeymen
found
bore
least
to
the
conditions
material
which
somerelationship
prices
at
themselves.
The correlation between strike years and high prices has also concernedother historians.
While the Bristol evidencewould appearto support Roger Wells' view that there was a
he
between
food
1795/6
the
termed a `seminal period of
and
connection
crisis
what
clear
of
73
less
have
been
historians
union activity', other
convinced. Thus, Chasenotes that
disputesin the 1760saroseat a time of àcute food shortageand spiralling inflation', but
that most disputes did not occur in 1763when privation was at its worst, while in the 1790s
`disputesin the famine years of 1795-6 were exceededin 1792'.74Likewise, Rule, utilising
Dobson's count of eighteenth-centurydisputes,arguesthat the èvidence of industrial
disputes' does not `suggesta fit with distressedyears'. Thus, 62 per cent of disputesin the
1790soccurred between 1791 and 1793, `the years before there was a downturn in the
75
earnings and expectationsof skilled workers'. Nevertheless,in contrast to the claims of
Rule and Chase,the Bristol evidencereveals the extent to which short-term fluctuations
could form an important context to claims. It is also worth noting that of 338 labour
disputes counted by Dobson, a massive273 were concernedwith wages and hours, while
only 65 were concernedwith workplace issuessuch as apprenticeship,working
76
arrangementsand machinery. Considering the nature of rising prices in the secondhalf of
the eighteenth century, it would be strangeif a considerablenumber of disputes did not
have at least some origin in concernsover rising prices.
While the `rhetoricof need'was stronglyredolentof `moral economic'imperatives,in

termsof the assertionof absoluteneed,this is probablyasfar asthe comparisoncanbe
151
drawn.77Although Chasearguesthat èarly trade unions were heirs to the meansby which
the seventeenthand eighteenth-centurycrowd sought to uphold a moral economy', and
Clark claimed that workers defendeda `moral economy' against `fluctuating wages',
78
back
their claims.
neither of theseauthorshas provided any substantialevidenceto
According to John Rule, the languageof an ìndustrial moral economy' was more relevant
to rural communities of weaversand knitters where `defenceof customary standardsand
expectations' was evident, than to the bargaining tactics of `well-established groups of
79
likewise,
Soly,
Lis
tailors
and
argue that while
and compositors.
urban craftsmen' such as
journeymen may have displayed `moral economic values' thesewere by themselves`not
interventions
`moral
economy
entails
specific
since
a
economy'
synonymouswith a moral
80
to regulate the market'. The only market that the Bristol journeymen were attempting to
intervene in was the labour market for, like urban artisansin general, they were `selling
81
labour
in
their
a collective context'. While the `rhetoric of need' was, therefore, clearly
underpinnedby `moral economic values', it was also the casethat the collective
experiencesof journeymen led them to justify their claims in terms of profits made by their
masters.
In this regardjourneymen waged a propagandacampaign, fought firmly within the arenaof
the `public sphere', which attemptedto illustrate that their respective trades could afford to
high
food
higher
While
the
theme
them
prices was a regular feature among
of
pay
wages.
wage claims, equally recurrent was the theme that profit margins justified an increasein
wages. This implies that the journeymen felt the market-rate of their wages was falling
below profit levels. Journeymentherefore sometimeslooked to gain public support for
higher wages by seeking to portray the mastersas swindling both customersand the
journeymen. In 1796, for example,Bristol's journeymen tailors drew attention to the fact
that while London wages were eleven shillings greaterper week than those paid in Bristol,
tailoring chargeswere similar to `those of London'. This led the journeymen to conclude
82
Bristol
Men
`can
that
masters
well afford to pay their
superior wages'. In 1777, Bristol's
journeymen shoemakerscertainly felt that the masterswere cheating both the customers
and the journeymen. The journeymen reported that some mastershad increasedthe price of
shoesfor which they had given `no other Reason' than a reputed wage increase.This, the
journeymen declared,had never been awarded.83According to Adam Smith, alongside
food prices, journeymen often cited the `great profit which their mastersmake by their
84
for
work' as a reason
pay claims. Further evidence of this can be seenin Bristol. Between
May and August 1773, Bristol's journeymen tailors regularly assertedthat their employers
`can very well comply' with an advanceas `they have sufficient Profit out of the Men's
152
85
Labour'. In 1790, thejourneymen presentedthe samedemandin more public-friendly
languagewhen they statedthat their requestfor higher wageswas so small `that it cannot
in the least injure our Employers nor the Public'. 86This suggeststhat the journeymen
financed
be
for
increase
the
the
that
to
could
without
need
public
a
wage
sought reassure
price increases.
Similar conclusions can be drawn from Bristol's boot-makerswho, in 1792, arguedthat
`the profits of that part of our trade' could afford a wage increaseand `leave a competent
by
Masters',
to
the
sentiments
also echoed Bath's shoemakerswho were engaged
surplus
in their own strike.87Likewise, in May 1792,Bristol's lady-shoemakersfelt the advance
$8
injuring
Public"
be
Masters
Such language
`may
their
or the
grantedwithout
required
.
did
increase
intended
that
to
not mean an increasein the
a pay
was
reassurecustomers
price of shoes.However, in June 1792,as the dispute continued into a secondmonth, the
ladies' shoemakersappearedto try a very different tack. This time they expressedtheir
hope that the public would `not hesitateto pay the additional Charge' on footwear `should
their employers comply with their request,and in consequenceraise the price of the
89
same'. Arguably, this strategy worked on two levels. Firstly, the journeymen were
looking to gain enoughpublic sympathy for a price increaseto allow them a rise in wages.
Secondly, however, the journeymen were also communicating to the mastersin a very
subtle manner. This can be comparedto Clifford Geertz's description of the manner in
which winking can be both intended and construedin many different ways. While Geertz
talked of activities such as winking in terms of `structuresof signification', he also
observedthat it could also be used to communicate `without cognizance of the rest of the
90
company'. In many ways, the ladies' men were using a semantic version of Geertz's
for
wink,
while their insertion was ostensibly addressedto the `public', the languagewas
also surely intended for the earsof their masters.Thus, the journeymen were actually
making their mastersaware of a way out of the impasse.Raise the prices, they are saying,
in order to pay for our wage increase,and we will attempt to persuadethe public of the
necessityof such an increase.That this approachwas not similarly adopted by the bootmakers, suggeststhat the ladies' men were addressinga higher class of clientele, especially
as it was a branch of businessthat was dependenton `close contact with high society' 91 It
would appearthat this tactic worked. In July 1792,both the ladies shoemakersand bootmakers made a joint insertion, in which they gave `humble and sincere thanks to the Public
in general' and especially `thoseprivate gentlemenwho have supported us in
so laudable
92
honour'.
The successof the 1792 action
an undertaking, which will redound to their
encouragedBristol's journeymen to launch a similar propagandaoffensive in 1796, when
153
its
in
Thus,
1796,
March
high
in
local
they
the
peak.
at
prices was
newspapersover
alarm
addressedthe `public' in the hope that `your philanthropy will countenance'rising prices
93
às it will thereby enableour Employers to comply with our request'. It would appearthat
the journeymen had becomehardenedto the reality that the masterswould not allow wage
increaseswithout concomitant price rises which would leave their profit levels unaffected.
The journeymen, therefore, sought direct `public' approval for a wage increase.
The bargaining ethos in which this particular strandof the artisans' languagewas couched
disputes
driven
by
labour
justify
Malcolmson's
that
to
were
popular
notion
would appear
be
just
for
'there
`fair
to
thought
as
a
wages',
was
minimum
notions of what constituted a
fair maximum for food prices'. 4 Bristol journeymen, therefore, resentedtheir masters
having
labour
difficulties
from
they
time
their
were
when
at
a
profits
unnecessary
making
differentiation
families.
Rule's
This
for
to
their
themselves
support
appears
and
providing
between offensive strikes that provided evidenceof a `trade union consciousness'and
those of a 'moral' characterin which he doubtedwhether eighteenth-centuryworkers `had
95
industrial
jumped with both feet into a systemof
relations'. On the basis of this
differentiation, Rule arguesthat workers were in fact aware both of a `moral' perception
that rejected the 'free labour market' and expectedwage bargaining to occur within
`customary parameters', and also of the `laissez-faire' notion that labour should be
96
acquired at the lowest possible price. Bristol's shoemakersand tailors certainly revealed
such a dichotomy in their own bargaining consciousness,reinforcing Rule's conclusions.
However, it would be wrong to supposethat notions of fairness were confined solely to the
journeymen, as it was not the casethat all mastersautomatically opposedwage claims.
Thus, Rule posits that `masterswere not always insensitive to the pressuresof rising food
97
demands
based
living
in
on cost of
prices and often compromised wage
grounds'. In
1752, for example, London's journeymen tailors sought higher wages due to `rises in the
98
living'
`large
cost of
and a
part of the masterssympathised' with the claim. John Rees,
the Bristol master shoemaker,acceptedin principle that when `the necessaryarticles of
life' happento àdvance' in price the wagesof the men `should keep pace with them'. 99
Analysis of table 5: 1 suggeststhat not all the masterswere implacably opposedto wage
demands.Thus, even during the tailoring dispute of 1796, when 47.19 per cent of masters
publicly rejected the claim, over half the masterswere, at least not publicly, opposedto the
wage claim. In the 1777 shoemakingdispute only 26.45 per cent of masterswere initially
in
opposed May, a figure which had fallen to 12.40per cent by June, at the sametime as
13.22 per cent of masterspublicly accededto the rise, These figures would appearto
154
indicate that among thosemasterswho by Junehad agreedto the claim, there were some
is
far
from conjectural, since
in
May.
This
had
initially
the
conclusion
who
opposed claim
later
initially
had
the
the
sixteen
among
who
claim
were
assented
opposed
six masterswho
1
demand.
In the 1792 shoemakingdispute while 31.82 per cent of mastersinitially
to the
had
been
few
later
the
of
masters
publicly cited as
weeks
a
one-fifth
opposed
claim,
have
figures
While
that
the
the
many
masters
suggest
may
sat on the
awarding
claim.
fence, it is clear that somehad no problem in awarding higher wages. In May 1777, for
instance,the master shoemakerWilliam Edwardsunilaterally raised wages on the basis
1'
Wages
fact
Families
City'.
The
òur
Men
the
this
their
that
support
usual
of
not
on
could
that Edwards was not among the 16 signatoriesthat publicly consentedto the rise suggests
that this list representeda conservativeestimateof those agreeing to the increase.In April
1781, the master tailor JamesDavis reportedthat `he has no Connection with the Disputes
between the Master and Journeymen' and statedthat he àlways pays the full Wages',
102
increase.
In 1796,the journeymen tailors themselves
he
had
suggesting
allowed the
had
feeling
Masters'
`generously
`many
the
that
the
of
part
of
given this small
asserted
103
advance'. Around the sametime Clarke, a master shoemaker,advertised that he had
been `the first who stept forward to give the presentadvanceof wages'.104There appeared,
therefore, to always be at least a group of masterswho allowed a claim, while others
opposedit.
This scenariowas often a factor in London disputes.In 1760, for instance, the Bow Street
magistrate Fielding spoke of the problems that London's master tailors had in rebutting
wage claims. This was due to the fact that somemasterstake àdvantageof the confusion'
and award the demandswhile `many other mastershave had a total stop put to their
business'.105In 1799, it was even claimed that the London shoemaking strike `had its
origins' in the `folly or ambition of a few masters' who offered more wages ìn order to
106
best
hands'.
In Bristol, the insertions of master shoemakersagainst wage
the
attract
claims positively inferred that other masterswould accedeto the demand.In 1777, it was
inherent in their warning that should other masters `be mean enough to take the Advantage
of our Unanimity' and pay the higher wages,thenjourneymen receiving this would be
denied `future Employ', a warning that was duplicated word for word in May 1792.107
Journeymen themselveswere all too aware of the differences between those masterswho
consentedto their demands,and those who were opposed.In 1777, the rhetorical question
asked by journeymen shoemakersmade it self-evident which group of mastersthey
recommendedto the public. For they contrastedthe master that `generously gives the
Hireling his Wages' with the one that `makesuse of all the dirty Methods he can
possibly
155
h-
invent to keep them out of it, and proceededto ask the public to judge which master ìs
108
the truly great Man'. By 1792, such a melodramaticturn of phrasehad been replacedby
a more prosaic one when Bristol's boot-makersnoted that `we return our sincerethanks to
109
humanely
have
those Masters who
given the advancedwages". Throughout June and
July 1792 the ladies men and boot-makerscommendedthirteen mastersfor having `given
be
`the
Public
the
these
that
shops
were
where
and
advised
may
us
wageswe required',
"
best
by
best
the
supplied with goods of the
quality and executed
workmen'. Poole
boycotts
insertions
to
the
that
encourage
purpose
was
rightly notes
of such
of masterswho
111
refused to comply with the demandsof the journeymen. Journeymen,therefore, sought
to divide employers on the issueof their wage demands,and also looked to encouragethe
customersof intransigent mastersto take their custom elsewhere.Such tactics naturally
involved an extensivelevel of organisationalskills.
ORGANISATION
While the advertisementsof journeymen made direct and `public' referencesto poverty
desperate
facet
this
nevertheless
represented
of
need,
only
of
and painted a picture
one
disputes.It is also necessaryto considerunderlying factors that are not so immediately
disputes
Greater
timing
the
of
evident.
understandingof
assiststhis. One factor that
favouredjourneymen was the high demandfor clothing and footwear evident during the
war years. Of the six years in which strikes took place three occurred against the backdrop
of war and three during peacetime.Both the 1777 strikes by shoemakersand tailors, and
the 1781 tailors' strike took place againstthe backdrop of the American War of
Independence(1775-1783), while 1796 saw Britain in conflict with Revolutionary
France.112That war years provided a favourable context in which to agitate for higher
wages was evident in 1777when the journeymen shoemakersassertedthat `Trade is very
brisk and Men scarce'.' 13This worked in their favour with the result that sixteen masters
soon acquiescedto `the full Wages' demandedby the journeymen. Consequently,these
employers were now `furnished with a sufficient Number of Hands' to meet the orders of
`Merchants and Tradesmen'." This, however, was the only time that journeymen
explicitly referred to favourable conditions. Direct espousalsof such trade-centredlogic
militated against the use of `moral' appealsto the `public', such as those basedon food
prices.
While war may have encouragedmen to strike, it cannot have provided the
sole reason,
half
the disputes occurred in peacetime.Evidence suggeststhat a propitious time to
since
strike occurred during the seasonalcycle of trades.Rule remarks that `groups of workmen'
156
àppreciation
they
àppropriate
of
that
showed
an
to
times
commonly
and
strike',
chose
'
15
in
1756
London
tailors
Dobson,
According
was
to
a strike among
seasonalpeaks'.
labour'
both
the
by
of
`the
shortage
of which
seasonal
coming of spring and
occasioned
116
journeymen.
it
forced `large numbersof masters(to) forget their resolution' against the
for
Bristol's
The
tailors.
time
to
strike
that
spring was also a propitious
would seem
journeymen of this trade struck in April in 1773,1781,1790, and in March 1796. Timing
from
transition
the
in
trade;
inherent
the
tailoring
marked
the
spring
workings of
was
October
the
to
By
return
winter rates, and
to
marked
contrast,
rates.
winter summer pay
in
in
the
tailors
1777
the
struck
winter rather
was
only year which
significantly perhaps
had
demand
the
This
that
men more confident of
made
than spring.
wartime
suggests
in
downturn.
In
1777,
trade
as
time
a
normally
was
of year when
winning concessionsat a
had
been
in
1773.117
in
Winter'
Trade
`Badness
there
the
as
talk
of
of
a result, there was no
However, the fact that the journeymen wished `to work the Winter Half Year' for winter
less
twothan
a
rates,
while
masters
sought
that
summer
week
shilling
per
one
wages
were
18
Discord
journeymen
the
that
the
seasonal
changes.,
accepted
shilling reduction, suggests
itself.
The
in
than
the
majority
change
rather
the
rates
seasonal
aroseover
scale of change
journeymen
in
disputes
trade
sought to advance
was good, and
occurred spring, when
of
for
1773,
April
Bristol's
In
levels.
beyond
their
example,
previous
summer rates
journeymen tailors sought summerratesof fourteen shillings per week, a two-shilling
19
increaseon their winter rate., In April 1781 mastersand journeymen again differed by a
14
While
for
that
shillings per week
the
masters
offered
year.
wages
shilling on
summer
the journeymen sought `2s 6d per day', or 15 shillings per week, a rise that doesnot seem
to have been awarded,becauseidentical amountswere put forward by the mastersand men
in
1796
the spring,
in
The
1790.120
April
again
occurred
of
agitation
respectively
between
the
that
source
a
major
of
contention
changing seasonalwageswere
suggesting
in
journeymen
the Bristol tailoring trade.
mastersand
Bristol's shoemakers,by contrast were paid by the piece, and at differing levels due to the
is
items
footwear
There
various
of
produced.
no evidence that their piece rates varied
many
1777,1792,
Nevertheless,
the
claims
of
and 1796 all occurred in
seasonally.
shoemakers'
121
like
demand
levels.
The prevalenceof
the tailoring trade,
was at optimum
spring when,
piece-ratesmay explain why the shoemakerswere only involved in two full-blown strikes
in the period, comparedto six by tailors. The fact that shoemakerswere paid by the piece,
and tailors in weekly or daily wages,therefore had a bearing on their respective bargaining
tactics. Piece rates, by their nature, establishedthe journeymen as a small producer in his
own right, with the ability to increasehis income in tandem with his work-rate. In May
157
1777, Bristol's journeymen shoemakersclaimed that due to high prices and low wages
`many (of them) have through a painful Necessitybeenobliged to violate the Holy
Sabbath'.122They had, in other words, had to work on Sundaysin order to survive. The
benefits of piece-ratesfrom the masters'perspectivewere clearly explained by John Rees.
Rees,with journeymen shoemakersin mind, felt there were `none that earn their wages
with more attention and labour', since `piece-work' meant there was no time for `skulking
for two or three hours in the day' if one was `to expect the samewages at night'. 123This
increase
first
hardship
in
during
to
that
the
times
was
strategy
production
suggests
of
order
to meet spiralling food costs.It was only when shoemakersstruggled to make endsmeet,
despite working a seven-dayweek, that industrial action was resorted to. This appearsto
have been the casein 1777. Shoemakerscould not opposethe method of wage payment
since this was an establishedpractice of the trade, and, as a result, they were presumably
more reliant on public sympathy to sustaintheir claims than tailors were.
The benefits of piece-rateswere not lost on Bristol's mastertailors. Indeed, the 1796
tailoring dispute was causedby the mastertailors' attemptsto introduce piece-rates.This
dispute
between
The
tensions
created
and
men.
move
major
masters
was fully conductedin
124
domain,
The mastersadvertisedin March 1796 that their new policy was to
the public
only employ `Men willing to work by the Piece', a move they statedwas `for the mutual
125
Robert
Tripp,
Masters
Journeymen'.
the
and
master tailor, elaborated
advantageof
further when he argued that piece-rateswere 'the best mode of ascertaining the value of the
Journeyman's labour' and allowing the `clever and industrious' to earn more than the
126
`weekly
current
wages'. As table 5: 1 shows, by early April almost half of Bristol's
master tailors were publicly dedicatedto this plan. They assertedthat it was their `mature
deliberation' that èvery ground for future complaint (would) be removed' by introducing
piece rates since ìndustrious Journeymen' could increasetheir wages ìn proportion as
127
industry
(sic)'.
Bristol mastershad perhapsbeen encouragedby
they encreasetheir
developmentsin the London trade. In April 1795, London's master tailors had resolved to
èmploy the Men in future by the PIECE (sic)', and clearly not expecting London-based
men to welcome this plan, they had advertised for `Young Men from the Country' who
128
`willing
by
(sic)'.
Piece rates were not generally deemedto be an
Piece
to work
the
were
acceptablemethod of payment by tailors. In 1777, for example, when Birmingham master
tailors had attemptedto `replace day ratesby piecework', but the proposal was met with a
`long strike' by the journeymen'. 129In this regard, then, Bristol's journeymen tailors
were
no different from their counterpartselsewhere.
158
Journeymentailors, as with other issues,looked for public support for their opposition to
piece rates. The opposition of thejourneymen was self-evident when the masters
from
`be
that
every insult which might be offered
protected
advertised
new recruits would
130
from
them
those who opposethis mode of employment'. The journeymen themselves
clearly opposedthe new systembecausethey felt that the piece-ratesoffered were
financially ìnadequateto a former day's work' 131Turning their attentions outwards, they
.
confidently assertedthat `we well know a discerning Public will never suffer' piece-rates
becauseby piece-rates`the employer receivesevery advantagethat hurry can give him',
132
being
disadvantage
`customer
(has)
from
the
the work
every
while
slighted'. In this
manner,journeymen portrayed piece-ratesas only benefiting the masters.Masters did not
let such accusationspassuncontested,assuringreadersthat `the Public in general will be
better served' by piece-rates.133However, as Poole argues,as far as the journeymen tailors
134
by-word
`piecework
for
were concerned
shoddiness'. The antagonismcreated
was a
over this issue demonstratesthat piece-rateswere seento benefit mastersrather than the
journeymen.
The sustainednature of the resistanceshown by journeymen tailors in 1796 and other

years, and by the shoemakers,suggeststhat some form of organisation existed. In 1777,
evidence from shoemakers'advertisementsmakes clear that an actual union set-up was
directing their operations.In June of that year an insertion was addressedto àll
JourneymenCordwainers' from `The COMMITTEE', an organisation that issuedtickets to
denote membership.135The purposeof thesetickets was ostensibly to affect a closed shop,
becausethey were to be shown when going `to work for any legal Master'. 136The
implication here was that mastersallowing the rise were only to employ those carrying
union cards. This was similar to the situation
which Brown describesin
London, where `personssubscribing' to union funds were known as "flints"' while those
`who do not join are honouredwith the dignified title of "scabs"'. 137The Bristol union
issued a rallying call to fellow journeymen. Addressedto `the whole Body of
JOURNEYMEN Cordwainers in the City of BRISTOL and its Suburbs (sic)', the insertion
called on the journeymen to àwakeout of that Lethargy' the union felt had existed for 16
years, urging men that `Now is the Time or never' for action. 138This organisation
representedboth men's and women's shoemakers.This was evident when the committee
were forced to dispel speculationthat there had been a `Mutiny' between the men's and
women's sectors,stating that òn the Contrary' the two groups were `determined to stand
by each other like so many Brazen
139However, this does

reflect the difficulty that
the union may have had in uniting groups of men doing essentially different
work.
159
Nevertheless,it also representsthe union's commitment to maintaining a united front. This

had
declared
their opposition to
thirty-two
mastershoemakers
was undoubtedly neededas
àny Mode of Combination' and threatenedto dischargemen `found in any such
Associations'. '40While a united front betweenthe two sectorswas regardedas a necessity,
ladies'
In
the
actually
that
organised
shoemakers
separately.
men's
and
evidence suggests
1792, for example, the boot-makersmadetwo appealsof their own and the ladies' men
jointly
This
just
four
three
made.
suggeststhat, while
appealswere
made
appeals,while
different
between
the
of
organisation,
aspect
central
unity
all shoemakerswas still
'4'
insertions
in
deemed
demands
the press.
worthy of separate
sectional
were nevertheless
While in 1792 the journeymen shoemakersmadeno specific reference to their union
ùnwilling
it
that
they
twenty-one
clear
perfectly
were
made
master
shoemakers
structure,
142
to countenanceany mode of combination'. The responseof the journeymen to this
`public'
In
their
times
thinking
that
they
of
audience.
adept
were
at
at
charge showed
ironical tones the ladies' men portrayed the mastersas being the ones who had combined
by inserting òne and twenty namesin a public advertisementin direct violation of the
law'. By contrast, the journeymen describedthemselvesas à few Individuals who have
143
families'.
but
The
a reasonablerequestto the support of themselvesand
made
journeymen were, therefore, looking to highlight the contradiction in the law, for as Adam
Smith recognised,the law `doesnot prohibit' the combinations of masters`while it
'44In
their rejoinder the men were very probably
prohibits those of the workmen'.
influenced by such sentiments,best encapsulatedby Smith, that 'masters are always and
everywhere in a sort of tacit but constantand uniform combination not to raise the wages
145
labour
above their actual
of
While disputes in the tailoring trade made less referenceto unionisation, mastertailors in
1790 were clearly opposedto their men's actions on the grounds that they `wish to check
146
Journeymen'.
A writer to the local pressurged
Combinations
the growing evil of
among
master tailors to seek `redress' for the `combination that your journeymen are entered
into'. 147The sheerregularity with which Bristol's journeymen tailors took industrial action
certainly suggestsat least some form of irregular union structure. Bristol's tailors struck
over pay in May 1757, over working hours in May 1762, and over pay again in October
In addition to the five strikes of 1773,1777,1781,1790, and 1796 studied here, in
1763.148
August 1792 six journeymen tailors were found guilty at Bristol's Quarter Sessionsof à
combination and agreementnot to work for Fortunatus Hagley' unless he raised wages.'49
These kinds of organisational developmentsmirrored those in London. By 1721, London's
tailors had formed a strong union `to the number of 15,000' and they conducted strikes in
160
By 1760'the journeymen tailors had the most

1744-5,1752,1764,1768 and 1778.150
forty-two
'affiliated
in
London'
clubs', and according to
consisting of
powerful union
Dobson, the `London society of journeymen tailors was the most militant and effective
151
In eighteenth-centuryBristol organised
in
England'.
trade union eighteenth-century
unions were probably likewise never far from the heart of industrial action.
In the tailoring trade, the houseof call played an important role in disputes. According to
the Webbs, the `houseof call' provided the opportunity to form `the nucleus of an
152
organisation'. Dobson notes that tailors, along with weaversand seamen,were among
153
in
house
`worked
their
strategiesover a tankard of porter their
workers who
out
of call'.
Farr remarks that the `houseof call was the focus of the conflict' in a strike by
Birmingham's journeymen tailors in 1777.154
In Bristol the journeymen also gained
organisational strength through
the houseof call. Its associationalatmospherecertainly
lubricated the 1773 Bristol tailors' strike. Recriminations in the press betweenjourneymen
tailors over who had instigated this strike, clearly illustrate the role played by the houseof
call. One group of journeymen basedat a public housein Tucker-street reported that a
claim made by another group, that they had been `the first Proposersof the late Scheme' to
strike were mistaken. In fact the Tucker-streetgroup claimed that `we had no Hand in it till
it was first proposedby them to us', referring to the other group basedat a pub in St. James
Church-Yard. '55Although this evidencesuggeststhat the journeymen were experiencing a
backlash from masters,hencenecessitatingan apportioning of blame that the houseof call
was the organisational hub of the strike. The clear inference here was that discussionsin
the house of call could result in industrial action. While one house of call may have
initiated discussion and then action, it would seemthat groups of men basedat other
houseswere then encouragedto take action, thereby creating greater unity. Of further
significance is the fact that thesehousesof call were basedin Tucker Street and St. James
Church-Yard, both streetslocated within the àrtisan' parish of St. James.It would seem
that, in 1773 at least, the organisation of the strike therefore grew out of those areasof the
city in which tailors were most concentrated.1773was no isolated instance, for in 1790
organisation again appearedto be grouped around the public house. With the result that
one hostile writer to the press called on the mastersto get the city's magistratesto cancel
the licenses òf the Tap-housesfrequentedby your journeymen', a measuredeemed
'56
defeat
the strike. In 1796 the hold of journeymen over the housesof call
necessaryto
was reflected when the mastersappearedto be just as keen on breaking the house of call
network, as on establishing piece-rates,suggestingthat they felt that to break this network
157
break
to
journeymen.
Thus, between 24`hMarch and 30th
the
was
organisation of the
161
April 1796 the master tailors advertisedthat they had establisheda `House of Call'
exclusively `for Men willing to work by the Piece' at the 'OLD GLOBE in Christmasstreet (sic)', the mastersbeing resolvednever to call journeymen from the èstablished
Housesof Call'. 158The mastershad, in fact, attemptedto break the journeymen's
stranglehold over the housesof call in previous disputes.In 1773, for example, mastershad
called for men willing to break the strike to go to `the Swan' public house in the parish of
Christchurch, while in 1781men were askedto meet at `the Crown and Leek' in Small
Street within the parish of St. Leonard.159The common denominator linking thesehouses
is that they were basedin the `wealthy trading' parishesof central Bristol where few
artisansresided. Christmas Street,the location of the houseused by mastersin 1796, was
also in the non-artisanparish of St. John. Furthermore,when the master tailors held their
collective meeting in April 1790,this was held at the `Merchant Taylors Hall (sic)', which
160
in
`Broad-street'
Christchurch.
was situated
within the central parish of
Thesedevelopmentsare highly significant in spatial terms. They suggestthat the
organisational baseof the masterswas situatedin the central parishes well away from
where the majority of tailors lived, while the organisationalcentre for the journeymen was,
by contrast, concentratedin the easterndistrict where the majority of them lived. This was
replicated in the, albeit, more limited evidencefrom the shoemakingtrade. Thus, in June
1777 the Òne ThousandMen' required to break the strike were askedto report to the
`Cordwainers-Hall' in Broad Street,in the central parish of Christchurch.,61From the
masters' perspective,the fact that organisationalstrength was centred in the `wealthy
trading' parishesreveals two things. Firstly, the mastersmay have felt that housesof call
neededto be relocated from areasof high artisanal density, such as St. James,in order to
make them less liable to domination by journeymen. Secondly, the mastersmay have felt
that arrivals of new men would have attractedless opprobrium from striking journeymen if
they were settled in areasaway from large groups of such men. From the perspectiveof the
journeymen, they perhapspreferred to be basednearerto where the majority
of men
resided, and in any casemay not have desiredto be close to central Bristol where the old
guild premises,dominated by masters,were based.
While chapter3 demonstrates

that the useof a houseof call was lessevidentamong
they,nevertheless,
shoemakers,
still held collectivemeetings.In 1792,for example,the
mastershoemakers
referredto `severalMEETINGSof JOURNEYMEN BOOT and
SHOE-MAKERS(sic)' havingoccurred,presumablyto discusstacticsanddistribute
funds.162
Thereis someevidenceto suggestthatjourneymenshoemakers
soughtthe
162
for
August
1777,
In
discuss
their
to
strikes,
rejuvenating effect of outside meetings
in
`Durdham-Down'
they
journeymen
that
Bristol
meet
on
would
mentioned
example, the
163
likely
forgiving
less
took
times
the
Meetings
place
of
year
discuss
their
at
to
strike.
order
164
in
Bristol.
John
in public houses,as occurred amongbasket-makersand carpenters
Brown mentioned partaking in 'a generalstrike' of the London shoemakingtrade in which
165
by
frequented
the trade. While
he àttendedmeetings at the different public-houses'
locations
the
these
in
trade,
the
of
exact
took
shoemaking
place
collective meetings clearly
for
less
the tailors.
than
clear
are
Of central organisationalimportance was the needto make sure that sufficient funds
dreaded
`journeymen
Rule
that
a strike' and were unlikely
notes
existed to support a strike.
in
1792
London's
built
been
fund
had
before
shoemakers
`strike
up', and
to
a supportive
166
lasting
foundation
lay
fund
the
`nothing
of a
union'.
can
that
short of a general
posited
As a journeyman shoemakerin London, John Brown joined a `combination for the support
fund
for
in
to
the
à
in
order
a
raise
monthly
amount
certain
of wages' which memberspaid
167
in
journeymen
Given
that
families
shoemakers
takes
place'.
when a strike
support of
London were far more numerousthan they were in Bristol, acquiring sufficient funds was
instance,
funds
for
1777,
itself.
In
in
waning
not always either easy or necessarilyenough
from
lasted
May
the
that
in
factor
Bristol
of
middle
the
shoemakers'strike
were clearly a
journeymen
àlmost
funds
the
1777,
by
July
Thus,
July.
exhausted',
were
to
when
early
`what
be
that
to
so
we cannot effect now
collected
statedthat subscriptionswould continue
168This problem arosedespite the fact that the men
Season.
future
be
effected at a
may
Bath
`Journeymen
in
In
Bath.
the
from
funds
their
mid-June
counterparts
were receiving
Cordwainers' had statedthat they were determined `to support (the Bristol men) to the very
have
they
by
`continuing
gained their
our weekly contributions until
utmost of our power'
169
ladies'
boot-makers
by
jointly
the
In
1792,
men
and
were
the
three
made
appeals
point'.
last of the nine insertions, perhapsindicating that funds were running low. Joint
fact
funds
the
that
especially
out
given
ran
crucial
as
money;
saved
advertisements
170
funds
In
1792
four
the
time.
problem
of
was ameliorated
shillings a
advertisementscost
by the support of other groups of workers, and both boot-makers and ladies' men
denominations
`those
tradesmen
various
who have supported
of
acknowledged
societiesof
171
liberal
contributions'. Evidence suggeststhat
and still continue to support us with their
such cross-tradesupport was not unusual by this time. Brown, for example, mentioned a
strike of London shoemakersin which `hundredsof pounds' were `borrowed from the
farriers, carpenters,and other trades'.172Nevertheless,the nature of the support received by
Bristol's shoemakersin 1792 appearsto have been exceptional, occurring during a year in
163
Pay
involving
trades
the
city.
claims during 1792 (table
affected
many
which a strike-wave
5:2) encompassedtwelve separatetradesand involved 60 per cent of the skilled artisan
Table 5: 2 : TRADES AFFECTED BY THE 1792DISPUTES IN TERMS OF TIIE ENTIRE SKILLED
ARTISAN SECTOR
Trade*
No. of Businesses
% of skilled trades
% of skilled trades
affected by claims
0.45
0.75
0.45
3
Millwrights
0.75
Shipwrights
5
0.90
6
Tanners
1.05
1.05
Tobacco Pipe-makers
7
1.20
1.20
8
Basket-Makers
1.20
1.20
Brick-Makers
8
8
1.20
Turners
1.35
9
1.35
Plumbers
1.65
1.65
Farriers
11
1.65
Wheelwrights
11
2.25
Coopers
15
2.40
Curriers
16
4.20
28
Hatters
4.50
Hoopers
30
4.50
4.50
Tilers/Plasterers
30
5.55
Masons
37
Smiths
7.02
47
9.60
Shoemakers
64
9.60
Cabinet-Makers
66
9.90
12.29
82
12.29
Bakers
12.29
12.29
Tailors
82
14.10
Carpenters/Joiners
14.10
94
100%
60.4%
Total
667
* Trades are listed in order of numbersof businessesin each,starting with the smallest.
Source:Matthews's Bristol Directory 1793-4 (Bristol, 1794).
trades. Support given to shoemakersfrom other groups of artisans,especially financial

assistance,representsevidencethat solidarity had begun to run horizontally acrosstrades,
173
just
Poole
than
rather
vertically, as
claims. The wide level of strike action undoubtedly
acted as a domino effect; the encouragementgiven by other striking trades, accountsfor
the timing of this action.Thus,JohnNoble,thenmayorof Bristol, wrote to the Home

Secretary on 13 August 1792 and declaredthat `many Journeymen' had `compelled their
Masters to raise their Wages'.174Captain GeorgeMonro, stationed in Bristol with his
militia regiment, also wrote to the Home Secretaryon 9 August 1792. Monro felt that the
demandsof the Kingswood colliers for higher pay had been èncouraged' by `the success
of the shoemakersand other tradesmen' who had `lately stood out for an increaseof
175
wages'. 1792 was an exceptional year in which the sheernumber of men taking action
tipped the balance of relations in favour of the journeymen. In every other year the need
for high levels of unity and organisationwas more important.
On occasion,Bristol's journeymen tailors criticised the skills of the `scab' labour that their
had
masters
recruited to break strikes. This also formed part of the propagandawar waged
164
in the press.In April 1773, for example,the journeymen tailors informed the readershipof
Bristol's press that the `Country Lads and Women' who were employed 'cannot be
in
Satisfaction
`Gentlemen
they
the
their
usually
met
with
supposedcapable' of giving
176
Cloaths before this Contention'. Opposition to female and unskilled labour clearly
involved a defenceof what historians havetermed a 'property of skill'. The stancetaken in
1773 undoubtedly reflected a position that looked to restrict èntry to the trade' by keeping
`knowledge of skills and work practices' confined to `thosewho had served
'77
labour
fact
The
in
òverstocking'
the
that
to
market.
of
order
prevent
apprenticeships'
London's tailors were opposedto lesserskilled men on the basis that they 'were prepared
to accept under-cutting piece rates' may provide further explanation for the opposition of
By the mid-1790s, consciousnessof a
Bristol men to this method of wagesin 1796.178
`property of skill' had becomemore pronouncedas a result of developmentsbrought about
during the Napoleonic War. The influx of female labour into trades such as tailoring in
179
labour.
Although
increasing
led
to an
subdivision of
particular had `cut wage costs' and
journeymen tailors did not complain of unskilled or female labour in either 1777,1781, or
1790, perhapsindicating that the journeymen had won a temporary victory in this respect,
by the mid-1790s the impact of demandsplaced by the Napoleonic War were being felt in
the Bristol trade. In August 1795, for example,Bristol's journeymen tailors objected to
based
Northampton
the
to
militia,
nearby, on the grounds that
working on a contract clothe
'
80
Women
`Men are wanted to work on the Cloaths as cheapas the
work on them'. The
men further complained that a `greatNumber' of women had been employed, providing a
further reasonwhy the men should have been so opposedto piece-ratesin 1796.18,This
distinctions
between
female
labour
the
that
to
to
notion
opposition
would appear support
skilled and unskilled work were primarily `rooted in social and gender distinctions' in the
late eighteenth century, as the men clearly resentedthe intrusion of cheap female labour
into their trade in both 1773 and 1796.182
However, the lack of concern over this issue in
other disputes, comparedto the ever-presentreferenceto food prices, suggeststhat it was
not a permanent causeof concern. Furthermore,notions of a `property of skill' did not
form part of the propagandaput forward by the shoemakersin their disputes. This was
perhaps due to the fact that the systemof piece-ratescreated gradesof skill by its very
nature becausemore experiencedjourneymen were able to make shoesof a good quality
more quickly than could a complete novice. This doesnot, however, mean that Bristol's
shoemakerswere not proud of their skills. Thus, John Rees, in his treatise on the trade, felt
that it was ònly by great attention and long experiencethat a proper degreeof knowledge'
in the trade was gained, while he advised young beginners that `the work is your best credit
183
under all circumstances. Overall it would appearthat consciousnessof a 'property of
165
skill' was an underlying part of the artisanal mind-set, yet was only openly expressedwhen
the threat of cheaplabour becamean issue,as was the casewith Bristol's journeymen
tailors in 1773 and 1795.Thesedevelopmentsonly really gatheredpace with the onset of
disputes
from
because
1793,
Bristol
France
the
of
most
war with
and,
predatedthis period,
most were devoid of concernsover unskilled and female labour. Between 1773 and 1796
more pressing concernsfaced both the journeymen tailors and shoemakersduring their
disputes.
Critiquing the skills of `scab' labour was a last resort, since the main tactic adoptedby
journeymen in this respectwas to restrict the flow of labour into the city in the first place.
This was a tried and trusted method of industrial action among tailors in the eighteenth
century, being used, for example,by Bristol tailors in 1757 and by London tailors in
1744.184
Such action was crucial, given that the mastersplaced adverts in newspapers
acrossthe country for labour to replacethe striking men. Among the first priorities,
therefore, was the need to warn fellow journeymen elsewhereof the nature of the situation.
By placing insertions in newspapers,the journeymen were clearly using the channelsof the
'public sphere' in an attempt to do more than merely tap the moral sensibilities of a
middle-class reading public. Thus, in April 1773, for example, Bristol's journeymen tailors
warned fellow journeymen to keep away, becausethere was `no opening nor
Encouragementfor Strangersto come in'. An almost identical warning to this appearedin
October 1777.185
In 1781, Bristol's journeymen tailors again felt it was their `Duty as
Journeymento inform every good Man' whether from the `Town or Country' that there
186
in
`sufficient
Complement
(sic)'
Bristol.
Men
They hoped that èvery feeling
was a
of
Man will keep from this City' as `their coming here must tend to the Hurt of many Men,
their Wives and Children (sic)'. 187In 1790, the journeymen made it clear that solidarity
was expectedwhile strike action was ongoing. Journeymenelsewherewere advised that to
take up the masters' offer of work in Bristol would deprive `many honest and industrious
men and their families of acquiring a competencein life', aside from the `disgracethey
188
bring
will
upon themselves'. In March 1796,journeymen tailors had devised a system
for receiving men who arrived in Bristol unaware of the dispute. Such men were requested
to report to the housesof call controlled by the striking men, those at Lewin's Mead and
St. James'sBack in the parish of St. James,and Broad-street in the parish
of
Christchurch.'89This no doubt made it easy for leaders of the strike to make
sure that new
arrivals did not work for intransigent masters,since they could be supplied to masterswho
had agreedto the advance.Neither is the fact that two of the three houses
were basedin the
àrtisan' parish of St. Jamesa surprise. However, the fact that one was found in the
166
The
Christchurch
use of the
`wealthy trading parish' of
offers anotherperspective.
Christchurch housecan perhapsbe explained by its proximity to the city centre where
in
the
it
fact
to
by
central and western
the
that
masters
closer
was
travellers arrived, and
to
who
journeymen
men
encourage
opportunity
This
a
good
striking
probably gave
areas.
by
being
to
than
masters.
put work
had recently arrived to support their position, rather
faced
Bristol's shoemakers.
Bristol
also
The need to restrict the numbersof men entering
Journeymen
àll
èarnestly
that
requested'
1777,
In June
as a result, the shoemakers'union
190
In
July
had
been
dispute
Bristol
from
the
settled.
Cordwainers' should stay away
until
journeymen'
`no
hoped
that
ladies'
would
boot-makers
1792, Bristol's
shoemakers
and
191
favour'.
The
Bristol
in
men echoed
into
till
things
town
our
`think of coming
are settled
dispute,
during
in
1792
March
their
journeymen
by
Bath's
shoemakers
the messagegiven
for
Bath
hope
`no
to
employ
that
come
their
will
Bath
workmen
the
expressed
men
when
192
journeymen
While
is
Men
Masters
clearly
between
dispute
the
settled'.
and
the
until
is
heeded
brethren
these
requestswere
looked to the solidarity of their
elsewhere,whether
labour
`scab'
fact
that
the
of
recruitment
another matter. Thesewarnings thus reflected
for
In
1773,
August
journeymen
the
to
case.
win
could genuinely threatenthe ability of
to
to
their
the
claim
the
journeymen
meet
masters
tailors
of
refusal
the
attributed
example,
Eight
from
Six
Lads
to
Country
they
Sufficiency
to
had
à
fact
give
whom
that they
of
the
193
because
labour
these
latter
The
Weck'.
Shillings
suggest
unskilled
Ten
pay rates
per
and
This
to
tends
Bristol
below
twelve
the
of
shillings.
rate
usual
were rates significantly
indicate that master tailors recruited extra labour not from among the skilled men of other
194
labour.
female
This
also
from
was
but
and
of
unskilled
pools
among
rural
centres,
urban
in
labour,
the
the
in
1777
of
and
context
the
replacement
sought
masters
when
evident
American War, advised `Taylors in the Country (that they) need be under no
195
In 1777,
it
`for
Apprehensions from the Impress (sic)' in Bristol as was
seamenonly'.
Bristol's journeymen shoemakerswere clearly incensedby the levels of imported labour
had
been
(have)
'Conflict
lamented
by
that
the
so
sharp
would not
used masters,as they
196
dirty Scabs'. In the
furthermore,
1796,
the tailors'
of
spring
journeymen,
by
best
despite
jeopardised,
the
the
the
efforts
of
campaignwasseriously
influx of labourinto Bristol. Accordingto thejourneymenthemselvesthe fact that the
not therebeenso many
led
Gloucester
for
Bristol,
had
labour
in
Bath,
to a
the
and
newspapers,
masters advertised
situationin which `therearemorethantwice the numberof menalreadyherethancan
197
labour
fact
find
The
the
that
marketwasso overstockedmeantthat the
employ'.
possibly
housesof call in St. JamesandChristchurchactedasreceptioncentresuntil the menfound
work elsewhere.Thus,thejourneymenplacedan advertthat advised'COUNTRY
167
MASTERS' that `they may be well supplied with good Workmen' by applying to their
housesof call. 198The men were, therefore, looking to return some of the surplus labour
backfrom whenceit came,in orderto controlthe laboursupplyin their favour.

These actions clearly indicate that journeymen were aware that control over working
'99
On
labor
levels
`derived
from
to
the
control
of
access
market'.
and
conditions and wage
this basis, historians have arguedthat tramping performed a key role in disputesby
allowing 'large numbersof journeymen to leave town and to settle elsewheretemporarily
200
from
force
their employers. The tramping network could therefore play a
to
concessions'
seemingly invaluable role in disputes,especially when one considersthe limited funds
from
'single
journeymen.
This
to
to
the
remove
network
unions
men
available
allowed
fund' with the result that the money collected was mainly used to subsidise less mobile
201
for'.
families
It
be
including
'large
to
those
may
with
concluded, therefore,
men
provide
that men with families tendedto stay behind while single journeymen left temporarily to
find work elsewhere.However, the Bristol disputesyielded little evidence of the use of
tramping networks. Indeed the only dispute to yield any details was that conductedby
Bristol's shoemakersin May 1792.Thus, the ladies' shoemakersrevealed that à Number'
of their men had àlready quitted this City in order to seek employ' in places where 'more
than the wages now solicited are given', thereby reducing the labour force in their
202
favour. The confidence that thesemen invested in the tramping system is pervasive in
203
'will
leave
their claim that rather than yield to the mastersthey
the city to a man'. That
tramping was not utilised as a tactic by shoemakersuntil the 1790ssurely lies in the fact
that while tramping links between London and Bristol shoemakersstretchedback to the
late fourteenth century, neverthelessan 'extensive network for tramping' among
shoemakerswas only establishedin 1784.20`
With regardsto the tailors the absenceof trampingduring disputesseemssurprising,given

the importance of the 'house of call' to their organising strategy, and the weight of
historical opinion. However, examplesof the use of tramping as a strike weapon arise
largely from London where many men were employed, and may not have been so
appropriate to a city like Bristol employing smaller numbers. While London's journeymen
tailors found it appropriate during their `general strike' of 1764 to `send 6,000 journeymen
tailors out of town', it may have been deemedless useful to a dispute involving just two
hundred men in Bristol. 205Indeed the main problem throughout the period, in both trades,
was the difficulties involved in stemming an inflow of labour rather than organising an
exodus. The ability to leave town and choke the labour supply, thereby bringing the
168
being
knees,
depended
the
to
therefore
their
mastersnot
on
able to find an
masters
alternative workforce. Perhapsthe relatively small size of the workforce, comparedto
London, meant that Bristol journeymen did not have this luxury since the masterswcrc
find
to
able
other workers. This was particularly so with regardsto the tailors, since there
faced
difference
between
London
those
were
a
massive
masters
who
was
with a shortfall of
6,000 men in 1764, and the Bristol masterswho had to find 250 men in 1796. Such factors
dictated that preventing men arriving rather than sending the existing workforce away was
the main consideration,since the two tactics were mutually exclusive.
Conclusion
While the methods and tactics that Bristol's journeymen shoemakersand tailors employed
in pursuit of their pay claims were multifaceted, they can perhapsbe broken down into two
types. Many of the appealsto the public had a `defensive' quality as the journeymen, and
especially the shoemakers,skilfully wove the worsening material position of their lives
into a morally charged `rhetoric of need'. This must be seenas a deliberate and perfectly
in
light
in
`public'
the newspaperpress over high prices.
tactic
concern
understandable
of
Attacks on profit levels and argumentsfor a fair wage also tapped into this concern, as
notable contemporariessuch as Adam Smith were aware of falling real wages.However,
while this contextualisesthe rhetoric deployed, it cannot explain why journeymen struck
exactly when they did nor the `proactive' aspectsof their action. The shoemakerswere
inspired to action in 1777 and 1792by favourable trade circumstancesdue to war demands
in the former year, and by the support and encouragementof journeymen in other trades
during the exceptionally strike-prone year of the former. In the case of the tailors the
earlier disputescan be attributed to a mixture of high war demand though more importantly
to the changesin seasonalrates, while in 1796 the dispute can be wholly attributed to the
introduction of piece rates. Away from the `public' eye the journeymen undoubtedly had a
strong level of organisation and methodsof funding disputes, particularly since the battle
to prevent `scab' labour from entering Bristol was a crucial one. It would appearthat the
use of tramping as a strike weapon was less prevalent among Bristol's journeymen than
historical
previous
studies suggest.This was probably due to the fact that the biggest threat
to the objectives of the journeymen arose from the inflow of scab-labour. There was little
in
use sending men away, ostensibly to stifle the supply of labour, if mastershad no
problem recruiting labour from elsewhere.Indeed, in such circumstancestramping played
into the hands of the masters,who were able to replace an intransigent workforce
with a
potentially more compliant one. The almost non-existent rise in tailors' wages during this
period, despite the number of strikes, suggeststhat journeymen were rarely able to control
169
the labour supply in their favour after the mannerof the more powerful London unions.
This may further explain why journeymen investedso much time, money, and effort in
implying
force,
journeymen
felt
`public'
the
the
that
their
role
of
a
mediating
awarding
organisational leveragewas not enoughon its own.
170
ENDNOTES
1Bristol Journal(hereafterBJ), 10/4/1773,1/5/1773.
2 Felix Farley's Bristol Journal (hereafterFFBJ), 11/10/1777.
3SarahFarley's Bristol Journal(hereafterSFBJ),31/3/1781,7/4/1781,

4 SFBJ24/4/1790.
s Bristol Gazette(hereafterBgaz), 24/3/1796.
6 SFBJ7/6/1777;Bgaz 12/6/1777;SFBJ21/6/1777.
Bonner and Middleton's Bristol Journal (hereafterBM13J),5/5/1792.
s Bristol Mercury (hereafterBmerc), 16/7/1792.The length of this dispute was not unusual as Brown talked
Years'
least
See
J.
Brown,
Sixty
for
lasted
'at
ten
dispute
London's
that
weeks'.
shoemakers
of a
among
Gleaningsfrom Life's Harvest (Cambridge, 1858),pp. 43-44.
9 J. Habermas,The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere(Cambridge, Mass., 1989; trans. by T.
Burger, originally published 1962.), p. 16.
10Ibid., p. 16,2-3,26.
11This list representsjust someof the growing number of works concerning the 'public sphere'. J. Siltanen
Origins
R.
Charticr,
The
Cultural
(London,
1984).;
Public
Sphere
the
Stanworth,
Women
M.
of
the
and
and
French Revolution (London, 1991),pp. 20-37.; A. La Vopa, 'Conceiving a Public: Ideas and Society in
Eighteenth-Century Europe', Journal of Modern History 64 (1992), pp. 69-90.; W. Reddy, 'Postmodernism
Cultural
(1992),
Anthropology
7
for
Ethnography',
Historical
Sphere:
Implications
Public
pp.
the
an
and
135-169.;M. C. Jacob, 'The Mental Landscapeof the Public Sphere:A European Perspective', EighteenthCentury Studies 28 (1994), pp. 95-113.; A. Clark, 'Contested Space:The Public and Private Spheresin
Nineteenth-Century Britain', Journal of British Studies 35 (1996), pp. 269-276.; C. Jones,'The Great Chain
of Buying: Medical Advertisement, the Bourgeois Public Sphere,and the Origins of the French Revolution',
American Historical Review 101 (1996), pp. 13-40.;J. Rendall, 'Women and the Public Sphere', Gender and
History 11 (1999), pp. 475-489.; H. Mah, 'Phantasiesof the Public Sphere:Rethinking the Habermasof
Historians', TheJournal of Modern History 72 (2000), pp. 153-182.
12Habermas,Public Sphere,p. 16.
13C. Calhoun, C., (ed.), Habermas and the Public Sphere(Cambridge, Mass., 1992), p. 36.
14lbid, p. 37.
15Ibid., p. 38.
16G. Eley, 'Edward Thompson, Social History and Political Culture: The Making of a Working-Class Public,
1780-1850' in H. J. Kaye and K. McClelland, (eds), E. P. Thompson:Critical Perspectives(Oxford, 1990),
' 14,36.
G. A. Cranfield,TheDevelopment
of theProvincialNewspaper,1700-1760(Oxford, 1962),p, v (preface),
13.
18J. Burnett,A History of the Costof Living (London,1969;1993Reprint),p. 156.
19This information was gleanedfrom the mastheadof the Bristol Mercury in several issuesfor 1792.Other
papers also had a similarly wide network of distribution.
Cranfield,Development
p. 97.
of theProvincialNewspaper,
21J. Rule, 'Industrial Disputes, Wage Bargaining and the Moral Economy' in A. Randall and A.
Charlesworth (eds), Moral Economy and Popular Protest: Crowds, Conflict and Authority (Basingstoke,
2000), pp. 171-176.
22The mastheadof all Bristol's newspapers

carriedthis information,with the sameprice, it is not known
whethera cheaperratewasofferedfor insertionsthatwereprintedweekafter week.
23BJ 10/4/1773; FFBJ 11/10/1777.
24BMBJ 1/5/1790.
25FFBJ 19/3/1796.
26BMBJ 17/5/1777; SFBJ 28/6/1777.
27BMBJ 12/5/1792(for both insertions).
28In 1756 the London tailors had used advertising spacein order to address'the Nobility'
and 'Gentry' over
their wage claim, claiming that their actions arosefrom 'no other Motive but the Public Good'. (See C. R,
Dobson, Masters and Journeymen: A Prehistory of Industrial Relations 1717-1800 (London, 1980),p. 67.)
In 1792Bath shoemakers,
duringtheir dispute,statedthat they 'respectfullybeg leaveto lay their casebefore
theNobility, Gentry,andPublickin general'.(SeeBath Chronicle,29/3/1792.)
29Dobson, Masters and Journeymen,p. 30.
30S. Poole, 'Popular Politics in Bristol, Somersetand Wiltshire, 1791.1805', Ph.D.
thesis, University of
Bristol, 1993, p. 373,
31A. Clark, TheStrugglefor theBreeches:Genderand theMaking theBritish IVorkin, Class(London,

of
g
1995),p. 27.
32Ibid., p. 66,27.
33Bgaz,8/4,15/4,29/4,6/5,13/5,20/5,27/5,3/6,10/6,17/6,24/6,1/7,8/7,15/7/1773;BJ 10/4,17/4,24/4,
1/5,8/5,15/5,22/5,29/5,5/6,12/6,19/6,26/6,3/7,10/71773;FFBJ 10/4,17/4,24/4,1/5,8/5,1 5/5,22/5,
29/5,5/6,12/6,19/6,26/6,3/7,10/7/1773.
171
34SFBJ 11/10/1777;SFBJ 31/3,7/4,14/4,21/4,5/5/1781. FFBJ 31/3,7/4,14/4,21/4,28/4,5/5/1781. BMBJ

31/3,7/4,14/4,21/4,28/4,5/5/1781.
35Bgaz 8/4/1790.
36Bgaz 17/3/1796.
37FFBJ 17/4,24/4,1/5,8/5,1515,22/5/1790; SFBJ 17/4,24/4,1/5,8/5,15/5,22/5/1790; BMBJ 17/4,2414,
1/5,8/5,15/5,22/5/1790; Bmerc 19/4,26/4,3/5,10/5,17/5,24/5/1790; Bgaz 22/4,29/4,6/5,13/5,20/5,
27/5/1790; Bgaz 24/3,31/3,7/4,14/4,21/4,28/4,5/5,12/5/1796; SFBJ 26/3,2/4,9/4,2314,30/4,7/5,
14/5/1796; FFBJ 2/4,9/4,16/4,23/4,30/4,7/5/1796; BMBJ 2/4,9/4,16/4,23/4,30/4,7/5/1796.
38Bgaz 12/6,19/6/1777; SFBJ 14/6/1777;FFBJ 14/6/1777;BMBJ 14/6/1777.In London it was also not
unknown to bring in so many men at once.Thus during the London tailors' strike of 1764 the mastershad
'brought in more than 1,000handsfrom outside London' in 'just six weeks'. SeeJ. Rule, The Experienceof
Labour in Eighteenth-CenturyIndustry (London, 1981), p. 155,and Dobson, Masters and Journeymen,p. 45.
39FFBJ 5/5,12/5,19/5,26/5,2/6,9/6,16/6,23/6/1792; Bgaz 10/5,17/5,24/5,31/5,7/6,14/6,21/6,
28/6/1792; SFBJ 5/5,12/5,19/5,26/5,2/6,9/6,16/6,23/6/1792; Bmerc 7/5,14/5,21/5,28/5,4/6,11/6,18/6,
25/6/1792.
40SFBJ17/5/1777,FFBJ 17/5/1777,BMBJ 17/5/1777,Bgaz22/5/1777.
41FFBJ 515,12/5,19/5,26/5,2/6/1792; Bgaz 1015,17/5,24/5,31/5,7/6/1792; SFBJ 5/5,12/5,19/5,26/5,

2/6/1792; Bmerc 7/5,14/5,21/5,28/5,4/6/1792.
42Bgaz31/3/1796;FFBJ2/4/1796;SFBJ2/4/1796;BMBJ 2/4/1796(for 1l names);Bgaz7/4,14/4,21/4,

28/4,5/5,12/5/1796;FFBJ9/4,16/4,23/4,30/4,7/5/1796;SFBJ9/4,23/4,3014,7/5,14/5/1796;BMBJ 9/4,
16/4,23/4,30/4,7/5/1796(for 42 names).
43BJ 10/4/1773;FFBJ 11/10/1777.

asBMBJ 17/4/1790.
45BMBJ 12/5/1792.
46Bgaz 24/3,31/3/1796.
47SFBJ 17/5/1777;FFBJ 17/5/1777;BMBJ 17/5/1777;Bgaz 22/5/1777; SFBJ 21/6/1777.
48SFBJ 21/6/1777.
49FFBJ 5/5/1792.
50J. Hatcher, 'Labour, Leisure and Economic Thought Before the Nineteenth Century', Past and Present,
160,1998, p. 69.
51Ibid.
52Ibid., p. 70.
53Ibid., p. 71.
54Rule,Experienceof Labour,pp. 53-54.

53Hatcher,'EconomicThoughtbeforetheNineteenthCentury',p. 98.
56J. Rule,Experienceof Labour,p. 151.
S' A. Smith, The Wealth of Nations, Books 1-111(1776;1970 edn.), p. 170.

58Ibid.
39BJ 14/8/1773.
60FFBJ 11/10/1777.
61BMBJ 1/5/1790; FFBJ 19/3/1796,26/3/1796.

62BMBJ 17/5/1777; BMBJ 14/6/1777.
63BMBJ 12/5/1792.For both insertions.
64Bgaz 21/6/1792.
65Bgaz24/3/1796.
66In 1792 Bath's journeymen shoemakerscomplained that mastershad

refused to allow 'such moderate
wages as the present prices of every article of life absolutely claim'. (Bath Journal, 12/3/1792). In April 1772
London's journeymen tailors petitioned magistratesfor higher wages 'on account of the dearnessof
provisions'. (Annual Register, Vol. 15,27/4/1772, p. 95.) In 1800 London's journeymen tailors again
addressedtheir masterson the basis of 'the excessiveprice of every necessaryarticle of life' in their need for
higher wages. (Dobson, Masters and Journeymen,p. 149.)
67BMBJ11/5/1776,Bgaz13/6/1799.
Therewerenumerousotherexamples.In 1777Bristol's journeymen
cabinet-makers
complainedthatlow wages'deniesat thepresentadvancedPriceof Provisionsthe
Necessaries
In 1791the carpentersagainfoundthat in
of Life to the Workmen'.(SFBJ30/8/1777).
consequence
of thevery high priceof provisionsandall the necessaries
of life' that the 'presentwages(are)
totally inadequateto the support of themselvesand their families'. (FFBJ16/4/1791) In 1792 the journeymen
millwrights cited the 'extreme dearnessof provisions' and 'house rent' during their claim for higher wages,
while the tilers and plasterersassertedthat the 'exorbitant price of house rent and dearnessof provisions'
warranted their seeking a wage rise. ( BMBJ 4/2/1792; Bmcrc, 27/2/1792)
68D. Davies, The Case Labourers in Husbandry Stated
of
and Considered. with an rtppcndLr Containing a
collection of accounts showing the earnings and expensesof labouring famil/es in different parts of the
kingdom (Bath, 1795; 1977reprint), p. 6.
69Bath Herald, 18/8/1792.

70Smith, Wealthof Nations, 177.
p.
172
" Ibid.
72SeeChapter 4 for an index of real wages for Bristol's journeymen tailors between 1773 and 1796.
73R. A. E. Wells, Insurrection: The British Experience, 1795-1803(Gloucester, 1986), p. 48.
74M. Chase,Early Trade Unionism: Fraternity, Skill and the Politics of Labour (Aldershot, 2000), p. 77.
75J. Rule, 'Trade Unions, The Governmentand the French Revolution, 1789-1802' in J. Rule and It.
Malcolmson (eds), Protest and Survival, TheHistorical Experience: Essaysfor E. P. Thompson(London,
1993),p. 123.
76Dobson, Masters and Journeymen,pp. 28-29.
"Thus E.P. Thompson developedhis theory of the 'moral economy' pertaining to disorders over food prices
and scarcity in eighteenth-centuryEngland. Thompson felt that during food riots crowds were driven by a
See
in
baking
bread.
E. P.
legitimate
the
milling,
and
of
marketing,
over
constituted
practice
consensus
what
Thompson, 'The Moral Economy of the English Crowd in the Eighteenth Century', Past and Present, 50
Q1971),republished in his Customsin Common(Penguin, 1991),pp. 185-259.
8 Chase,Early Trade Unionism, pp. 54-55; Clark, Strugglefor the Breeches,p. 120.
79J. Rule, (ed.), British Trade Unionism 1750-1850(London, 1988), p. 8.
80C. Lis and H. Soly, "'An Irresistible Phalanx": JourneymenAssociations in Western Europe, 1300-1800'
in C. Lis, J. Lucassen,and H. Soly, (eds), 'Before the Unions: Wage earnersand collective action in Europe,
1300-1850', International Review of Social History, 39, supplementno. 2,1994, p. 15.
81A. Randall, 'The Industrial Moral Economy of the GloucestershireWeavers in the EighteenthCentury' in
J. Rule, (ed.), British Trade Unionism 1750-1850(London, 1988), p. 47.
82SFBJ2/4/1796.
83SFBJ28/6/1777.
84Smith, Wealth of Nations, p, 170.

85BJ 1/5/1773; BJ 14/8/1773.
86BMBJ 1/5/1790.
r BMBJ 12/5/1792.In 1792, for example, Bath journeymen were adamantthat the 'profits of the masters'
are 'such as would justify them in a demand for much higher wages than they have asked'. The journeymen
even threatenedto 'publish a list of the prices of the leather, of their own labour, and the Masters charges',
though this seemingly never materialised.(Bath Journal, 12/3/1792)The journeymen later claimed that Bath
masterscharged 'as high prices as are paid in any part of Europe, when they refuse to pay their workmen
wages much inferior to what is given in every principal trading town in England'. (Bath Chronicle,
29/3/1792).
88BMBJ 5/5,12/5/1792.
89BMBJ 2/6/1792.
90C. Geertz,TheInterpretationof Cultures:SelectedEssays(New York, 1973;1993edn.), p. 9,6.

91J. Swann,Shoemaking
(PrincesRisborough,Bucks.,1986)pp. 8-9.
92Bmerc 9/7,16/7/1792.
93Bgaz 24/3/1796.
94R. Malcolmson,'Workers' Combinationsin Eighteenth-Century

England'in M. andJ. Jacob(cds),Tile
Origins ofAnglo-AmericanRadicalism(London,1984),p, 150.
95Rule, 'Wage Bargaining and the Moral Economy', p. 184.

96Ibid., p. 183.
97Rule, Experience of Labour, pp. 177-178.
98Ibid., p. 153.
99J. F. Rees,TheArt andMysteryof a Cordwainer;or an Essayon the Principlesand Practiceof Bootand

Shoe-Making(London,1813),p. 83.
'0 BMBJ 14/6/1777.William Till-Adams, JosephShort, John Smith, John Squier, George Millett, and John
Isaac were originally opposedon 17'hMay. SeeSFBJ 17/5/1777,
101BMBJ 10/5/1777.
102FFBJ 21/4/1781.
103SFBJ 26/3/1796.
104BMBJ 2/4/1796.
103J. R. Farr, Artisans in Europe, 1300-1914 (Cambridge, 2000), 214; Dobson, 14Masters Journeymen,
p.
and
p. 61,69.
106Dobson, Masters
and Journeymen,p. 136.
107SFBJ 17/5/1777; FFBJ 5/5/1792.
108SFBJ 28/6/1777.
104BMBJ 12/5/1792.
Bgaz21/6/1792;BMBJ 7/7/1792.
Poole,'PopularPolitics', pp. 364-365.This wasa tacticusedby shoemakers
in othertowns.The
journeymenshoemakers
of Newcastle,for example,advertiseda list of twenty-twomastersin their local
ressof thosemastersthat 'havegiventhe advancedPrices'.SeeNewcastleAdvertiser,4/8/1792,15/911792.
12
J. lioppit, Riskand Failure in EnglishBusiness,1700-1800(Cambridge,1987),p. 122.
113
BMBJ 14/6/1777.
173
14 BMBJ 14/6/1777, SFBJ 21/6/1777.

115Rule, Experienceof Labour, p. 178.
"'Dobson, Masters and Journeymen,p. 68.
117BJ 1/5/1773.
18 FFBJ 11/10/1777.The journeymen wanted them reducedfrom 14 shillings to 13 shillings, while the
mastersoffered 12 shillings.
119BJ 10/4/1773,29/5/1773.
120SFBJ 31/3/1781; FFBJ 7/4/1781; FFBJ 17/4/1790.
122BMBJ 17/5/1777.
124Bgaz 24/3/1796,6/5/1790.
125Bgaz 24/3/1796.
126Bgaz 24/3/1796.
127
Bgaz31/3/1796,7/4/1796.
128
FFBJ25/4/1795.
t29Rule, Experience of Labour, p. 156.; Farr, Artisans in Europe, p. 214.

130Bgaz 24/3/1796.
131SFBJ 26/3/1796.
132SFBJ 26/3/1796.
133Bgaz 31/3/1796.
134Poole, 'Popular Politics', p. 356.
135BMBJ 14/6/1777; SFBJ 28/6/1777.
136SFBJ 28/6/1777.
137Brown, Sixty Years' Gleanings, pp. 42-43.
138BMBJ 24/5/1777.
139Bgaz 10/7/1777.
140SFBJ 17/5/1777.
14'Bgaz3/5/1792,BMBJ 5/5,12/5,2/6,9/6/1792,Bgaz21/6/1792,Bmerc9/7,16/7/1792.
142
BMBJ 12/5/1792.
143BMBJ 12/5/1792.
144Smith, Wealth of Nations, p. 169,
145ibid.
'46Bgaz 6/5/1790.
147SFBJ 24/4/1790.
148Thus in May 1757 the Bristol journeymen bargainedfor an extra shilling per week, while in May 1762 the
journeymen in common with their Bath counterpartsagitated to 'labour fewer Hours in each day'. SeeBath
Journal, 30/5/1757 (for Bristol dispute), FFBJ 1/5/1762 (for Bristol dispute), FFBJ 22/5/1762 (for Bath
dispute). While in October 1763 Bristol's journeymen tailors refused the masters' rates of 'Eleven Shillings
per Week for the Winter Season'.(See FFBJ 15/10/1763).
49FFBJ 18/8/1792.
'50F W. Galton (ed.), SelectDocumentsIllustrating the History of Trade Unionism: The Tailoring Trade
(London, 1896), pp. 20-21.; Rule, Experience of Labour, p. 153,155.
'S' Lis and Soly, "'An Irresistible Phalanx"', p. 45.; Dobson, Masters and Journeymen, 60.
p.
152
S. andB. Webb,TheHistory of TradeUnionism1666-1920(London,1894,1920edn.), p. 23; J. Rule,
TheLabouringClassesin Early IndustrialEngland1750-1850(London,1986),p. 256.
153Dobson, Masters and Journeymen,p. 25.

154Farr, Artisans in Europe, p. 214.
155BJ 6/11/1773.
156SFBJ 24/4/1790.
'37FFBJ 30/4/1796.
158Bgaz 24/3/1796; Bgaz 7/4/1796; FFBJ 30/4/1796.
159Bgaz 8/4/1773; BMBJ 7/4/1781.
160Bgaz 8/4/1790.
161Bgaz 12/6/1777.
'62FFBJ 5/5/1792.
163BMBJ 2/8/1777.
164In February 1792, for example, the journeymen basket-makers
concluded their demands 'at the house
known by the sign of the NEPTUNE in Temple-street', while the carpentersattended a
meeting 'at the sign
of the Cross Keys on the Back'. FFBJ 11/2/1792;BMBJ 25/2/1792.
165Brown, Sixty Years' Gleanings,
pp. 43-44.
166Rule, Experience Labour,
of
pp. 179-180.
p.
168BMBJ 5/7/1777; Bgaz 10/7/1777.
174
169
Bath Chronicle,19/6/1777.
170The mastheadsof the Bristol newspaperscarried this information.

171Bmerc 9/7,16/7/1792.
172Brown, Sixty Years' Gleanings,pp. 43-44.
13 Poole, `Popular Politics', p. 364.
174Bristol Corporation Letter Book 1792 (05158), Bristol Record Office, pp. 22-23.
"s A. Aspinall, (ed.), TheEarly English Trade Unions: Documentsfrom the Home Office Papers in the
Public Record Office (London, 1949),pp. 6-7.
176BJ 17/4/1773.;BJ 14/8/1773.
'7' J. Rule, `The Property of Skill in the Period of Manufacture' in P. Joyce, (ed.), The Historical Meanings
of Work (Cambridge, 1987),p. 101. It is well known that London's journeymen tailors in this period fixed
their own output levels in order to exclude ìnferior craftsmen from the better shops'. SeeRule, 'Property of
Skill', pp. 109-110. An Essextailor put to work in London in 1810 found that 'it required my utmost efforts
to get through the allotted amount of day's work within the appointed time', being `too much for anyonebut
a clever and very quick hand', as 'it was fixed by the workmen themselves'. SeeChase,Early Trade
Unionism, p. 88. The origins of London journeymen tailors being 'granted control over labor placement'
dated as far back as 1458. SeeFarr, Artisans in Europe, p. 205.; R. A. Leeson, Travelling Brothers: TheSix
Centuries' Roadfrom Craft Fellowship to Trade Unionism (London, 1979), p. 45.
178Rule, 'Property of Skill', p. 112; Rule, Experienceof Labour, p. 36.
179Clark, Strugglefor the Breeches,pp. 119-121,122,123.
180SFBJ 15/8/1795.
18'SFBJ 15/8/1795.
182Rule, 'Property of Skill', pp. 108-109;Chase,Early Trade Unionism, p. 26.
183Rees,Art and Mystery, p. iv (preface),p. 135,82.
184In 1757 Bristol's journeymen tailors placed an insertion in the Bath press, warning other tailors that `there
is no Want of Men in this City' and that by coming to Bristol they would 'greatly injure those who are here
already'. (Bath Journal, 30/5/1757). In 1744 London's journeymen tailors also used this method; during a
dispute they warned `country tailors' that it would be best 'to stay out of London until the matter is settled'.
(Dobson, Masters and Journeymen,p. 63.)
185
BJ 10/4/1773;FFBJ 11/10/1777.
186
SFBJ7/4/1781.
187SFBJ 7/4/178 1.
188FFBJ 8/5/1790.
189SFBJ 26/3/1796.
190BMBJ 14/6/1777,5/7/1777.
191Bmerc 16/7/1792,
192Bath Chronicle, 29/3/1792.
193BJ 14/8/1773.
194In 1764 magistratesallowed London's tailors a wage of 2s 7'/Adper day, which
on a 6-day week amounted
to 15s 9d. SeeAnnual Register, 18/1/1764,Vol. 7 (London, 1778), p. 47. In 1772 magistratesallowed an
extra six penceper day, which over a 6-day week, representedan increaseof 3 shillings per week, bringing
wages to 18s 9d per week. Annual Register, Vol. 15,27/4/1772, p. 95.
193
SFBJ11/10/1777.
196
BMBJ 5/7/1777.
197
SFBJ26/3/1796;FFBJ30/4/1796.
198
FF13J30/4/1796.
199Fan, Artisans in Europe, pp. 202-203.

200Leeson, Travelling Brothers, p. 17.; Lis and Soly, "'An Irresistible Phalanx"',
p. 31.
201Rule, Experience of Labour, p. 181; BMBJ 12/5/1792.John Brown, the London journeymen
shoemaker,
explained how the system operatedduring a strike in his trade in the very early nineteenth century. While
Brown and his fellow journeymen were 'furnished with tramping money to enable them to go into the
country until the dispute' was settled, it was 'nearly all the single men' who actually 'packed up their kits and
went on (the) tramp' since `they were not allowed any relief. SeeBrown, Sixty Years' Gleanings, pp. 42-43.
202BMBJ 12/5/1792,2/6/1792.
203BMBJ 7/7/1792; Bmerc 9/7/1792,16/7/1792.
204Leeson, Travelling Brothers, 35.; Chase,Early Trade Unionism, 62.
p.
p.
205Farr, Artisans in Europe, p. 214. The
practical effect of this was that these6,000 men had `dispersed' in
an effort to 'turn the chaseagainstwinter upon the mastersby offering their services to every Nobleman and
Gentleman' they came across'in the country'. J. Lindsay, 1764: The Hurlyburly
of Daily Life Exemplified in
One Year of the Eighteenth Century (London, 1959), p. 246.
175
Chapter 6: Before the French Revolution: Artisans and Electoral Politics

in Bristol, 1774-1784
This chapter has severalmain aims. Firstly, it assessesthe extent to which Bristol's
between
by
American
1775
the
colonies
and
war
polarised
with
electoral politics were
1783. The fact that Tory candidatesin the Bristol elections of 1774,1781 and 1784
it,
it
British
in
Whig
America,
candidates
military
action
while
opposed
supported
makes
for
for
the war itself, within the
thus
to
these
candidates,and
possible compare support
electorateand among Bristol's shoemakersand tailors. Secondly the chapter assessesthe
extent to which thesetwo tradeshad distinctive voting patterns.The two tradeswill be
categorisedinto Bristol-based voters and out-voters, a division existing within the poll
books themselves,in order to gaugedifferences in voting patterns. Within Bristol itself, the
journeymen
are compared;cross-referencingof trade
patterns
masters
and
voting
of
directories and poll books allows tradesmenappearingin both sourcesto be separatedinto
a separatesampleof employers.Thirdly, the chapter assesseswhether artisanal voting
patterns were shapedby social milieu. The study therefore examineswhether shoemakers
and tailors residing in areaswhere a social elite predominatedvoted differently from those
in areaswith high concentrationsof artisans,Finally, the study isolates a sample of voters
among both tradeswho were experiencedvoters in order to monitor the extent to which
behaviour
changedbetweenelections.
voting
Late eighteenth-centuryBristol representeda prime example of a wide freeman franchise,

between
5,000 and 6,000 voters. This was a relatively large electorate and one only
with
'
by
in
London
Westminster.
As a result, a larger proportion of
surpassed actual size
and
Bristol's male population possessedthe vote than the national average: around 10 per cent
of Bristol's population of approximately 60,000 people in this period (females included)
were voters whereasnationally `no more than 10-12 per cent of adult males had the vote'.
Furthermore, according to one extensivesocio-economic study of Bristol in the 1770s
àrtisans' formed around 60 per cent of this electorate during the 1774 election. Artisanal
representationwas high becausemany journeymen and masters qualified to vote on the
basis of their statusas freemen. This was awardedto all those who had completed an
apprenticeshipin Bristol4 This situation was, however, not that uncommon during this
period. Artisans made up between 61 and 65 per cent of the electoratesin Norwich,
Maidstone and Northampton between 1761 and 1802, and 67 per cent of the Liverpool
electoratebetween 1780 and 1802.5According to Leeson, Bristol was one of a number of
centres such as Sheffield, Leicester, and Nottingham where electoral rights made artisans
`formidable' force.6
176
The strong presenceof artisansamongthe Bristol electoratelends itself to a revision of

historical understandingof the role played by artisansin eighteenth-centurypolitics.
Previous studies have tendedto concentrateon the extra-parliamentary role played by
for
in
from
Wilkite
the
movements
movement
radical
parliamentary
artisans various
for
ideals
in
late
1760s
1770s,
the
to
the
egalitarian
early
support
of the French
and
reform
Revolution.7 Studiesthat have focusedon electoral politics have highlighted the role that
disenfranchisedworkers played in election crowds, and this has been characterisedas the
`politics of the excluded'.8 Mark Harrison, for example,argued that crowds at Bristol's
late
hustings
in
'of
the
the
century
predominantly
consisted
eighteenth
election
9
Likewise
Rogersclaims that a generic style of `crowd action'
masses.
unenfranchised'
was `located within a theatre of politics' that encompassedbehaviour at election hustings,
10
`royal
the
the witnessing of punishments,and
proclamation of
edicts'. By contrast,
have
little
the
received
who
possessed
vote
attention. The high numbersof
artisans
actually
artisanswithin the electoratesuggeststhat neither artisanal extra-parliamentary radical
activity nor their involvement in crowds, were their only methods of political participation.
A focus therefore on electoral activity promises to significantly broaden our understanding
of artisanal politics. In addition, in the Bristol case,it can also be used to quantify support
for the radical-influenced opposition to the American War. This is especially important
with regards to the shoemakerswho have beenportrayed by Hobsbawm as the ìdeologists
of the common people', or, in other words, as a group which commonly embracedradical
" The election
politics.
results of 1774,1781, and 1784 allow an assessmentof support for
candidatesinfluenced by radical politics. If the Hobsbawm hypothesis has any resonance,
one would expect Bristol's shoemakersto show a greater inclination than other groups to
for
inclined
radically
vote
candidates.
Bristol, Radical Politics and the American War

The fact that three parliamentary elections occurred in close proximity to the time of the
American War (1775-83) suggeststhat this conflict had an important impact on Bristol's
politics. The outbreak of war in 1775between Britain and the American colonies badly
disrupted Bristol's trade, putting a stop to Bristol exports to America of everything from
sergesto tobacco-pipes,and causing general distress,with the result that `poor rates
increasedabout 150 per cent' during 1775.12It is therefore important to assessthe wider
issuesthat influenced Bristol elections in this period. Table 6: 1 displays the
election results
for each election, plus the 1780result for which no poll book survives. It also displays the
party allegiance of the candidates,an important marker for attitudes to the American War.
177
It was true in Bristol, if not nationally, that Whig candidateswere unanimously opposedto
13
the War while Tories supportedthe military action.
Table 6: 1 : Votes for Candidates in Bristol Parliamentary Elections, 1774-1784
1781 by-election
1784 Election
1774Election
1780Election
Candidate/Party
2,771
3 052
3,565
1 271
Cruger/Whig
2,707
18
Burke/Whig
788
373
Peach/Whig
3,358
2,456
2,771
Brickdale/To
283
Clare/Tory
2,518
Lippincott/Tory
3,143
2,982
Dauben /To
Sources: 1774- Bristol Poll Book (1774); 1780- J. Latimer, TheAnnals of Bristol in the Eighteenth
Century (Bristol, 1893), p. 445; 1781- Bristol Poll Book (1781); 1784- Bristol Poll Book
(1784).
The resounding victory of Henry Cruger in 1774, together with the election of Edmund
Burke, representeda sound defeat for the Government and its' representativesin Bristol.
Cruger's radical credentialsare apparentfrom his involvement in local politics in the years
14
1770s.
Bristol was a place in which widespreadsupport
between the late 1760sand early
for the radicalagendaof JohnWilkes appearedto exist.The Wilkites calledfor ànnualor

triennial Parliaments and a more equal representation'of the population in Parliament, and
also sought to bring Members of Parliament `more frequently and closely under the control
15
his
constituents'. When Parliament disqualified the electoral victory of Wilkes in
of
Middlesex in March 1769, a petition had been sent in protest from Wilkes' supportersin
Bristol who also ìnstructedtheir MPs to supportJohnWilkes over the Middlesexelection

16
for
caseandto press shorterparliaments'. Crugerwasat the centreof this activity andhe
he
termed the `numberlesspersecutionsand cruelties exercised
what
resolutely opposed
17
January
Wilkes'.
On
5
1770, Cruger personally presenteda
Mr.
the
against
person of
petition to the King against Wilkes' imprisonment. The petition was signed by half of
18
5,000
Bristol's
voters. Widespreadpopular support was further illustrated in April 1770
whenBristol wasamongthe placesthat ìlluminatedtheir streetsor held banquets'to

t9
from
Wilkes
celebratethe releaseof
prison. In organisationaltermsthe `substantial
following' that Wilkes enjoyed in Bristol was `centred in the Independent Society', an
founded
by Cruger and his father-in-law, Samuel Peach.Both were no doubt
organisation
in
present January 1772 when Wilkes was `rapturously received' in Bristol and à large
banquet was held in his honour'. 20Not surprisingly, then, Lord North, then the Prime
Minister, describedCrugerasa `hot Wilkite' in the run-upto the 1774electionin Bristol.21

Nationally Cruger'svictory wasrelatively unique.Accordingto Cannon,Bristol
represented`theonly clearvictory for provincialradicalism' at the 1774generalelection22
The radicalagendaclearly inspiredCruger'svictory speechat the 1774poll whenhe
178
declared to his constituentsthat it was his `duty in Parliament to be guided by your

3
for
òn
Occasions
he
declared
He
instructions'.
that
all
vote
would
also
counselsand
4
Cruger
fact
The
Parliament'.
that
Duration
won a clear majority
the
of
shortening
indicates that his radical stancestruck a chord with the Bristol electorate.However, his
Wilkite agendapreventeda genuinealliance with Edmund Burke, the other Whig
Burke
Cruger
between
that
Personal
only an
meant
and
enmities
political
and
candidate.
differences
Their
joint-Whig
were most apparent
political
platform ever existed.
unofficial
known
his
ìnstructions'
the
Cruger's
electors,
policy
to
of
a
commitment acting upon
over
25
in radical Wilkite circles as the ìnstruction movement'. Burke, in contrast to Cruger,
informed Bristol's electors in November 1774that he would vote in accordancewith his
`personaljudgement' and so would be ùntrammelledby the "coercive authority" of the
differences
help
Clear
his
to
therefore
"instructions"
explain
constituents'26
of
or
mandate
in
1774.27
Burke'
Cruger
`declined
with
a
union
why
Political animosity betweenthe two Whig campswas also reflected in letters to Bristol's
heavily
Burke's
to
was
commonly
and
parliaments
opposition shorter
newspapers.
for
October
1774,
In
by
Cruger's
example, one writer warned voters
supporters.
criticised
he
òpposer
that
Burke
was 'consequently.... the
that since
of short parliaments'
was an
28
letter
for
being
Another
Burke
balanced
free
castigated
constitution'
and well
enemy of a
by
demand
Cruger's
Wilkite
`triennial
to
clearly
adopted
parliaments', a
opposed
à
Parliament
Members
The
that
of
should
act
as
control on the
added
writer
supporters.
Crown and the Lords', arguing that this was impossible unless MPs àre controlled by the
29
In
it
is
hardly
`frequent
this
climate
elections'.
people', a policy which required
had
`made
`separate
Burke
Cruger
together'
that
appearances
public
and
no
and
surprising
0
differences
further
Their
increased
between
managers'.
and
committees,
agents,
election
1774 and 1780, when both men simultaneously representedBristol. In 1778, for example,
Cruger òbeyed instructions' sent from Bristol and voted against legislation designedto
31
legislation
had,
been
in
fact,
`restrictions
Irish
This
that
trade'.
piece
of
was
a
on
ease
Whig
by
Differences
between
Burke.
the
two
representativeswere also
proposed
manifested in their respective attitudes to parliamentary representation.Cruger's approach
to representativepolitics was accurately, if caustically, summed up by Burke who
Cruger's
`diligent
his
`total neglect of attendance
the
attendance'
on
voters
with
contrasted
in Parliament'.32
Nevertheless,despitetheir varieddifferences,both CrugerandBurke were opposedto

British treatmentof the Americancolonies.While Burke disavowedCruger'smoreradical
179
`rights
Whigs
the
the
Rockingham
he
to
the
of
supported
who
was aligned
outlook,
"
American colonists'. The fact that both Burke and Cruger opposedthe British military
be
therefore,
in
America
must
underplayed.
and,
not
was of national significance
campaign
Upon their mutual election victories in 1774,Bristol was àlmost alone of any
its
to
the
`changed
in
that
advantageof
the
representation
country
whole
constituency'
34
The rift and subsequentconflict with the
Court'.
discomfiture
America and to the
of the
American colonies had sharply divided Bristol society and was the main reasonfor Cruger
Whigs
Clare,
Bristol's
Lord
in
1774.
Dissatisfaction
Burke's
with
among
nominations
and
their Parliamentary representative,and especially his support for the `King's American
35
in
It
1774
that
from
this
his
led
the
was
climate
contest.
to
early withdrawal
policy'
Cruger steppedforward as a candidatewho advocated`conciliatory measurestowards the
(American) colonies'. Cruger, however, perhapsbecauseof his New York origins, was
6
While
Cruger
independence.
Whig
full
to
soon
won
astute enough never advocate
Government's
`zealous
the
the
opponents'
of
most
approval and nomination, some of
American policy decided to put Burke forward so `that both the seatsshould be claimed'
for the Whigs.37The nomination and election of both men marked a seismic shift in Bristol
1756
Whig
the
The
two
agreements
of
and
asunder
candidates
split
election of
politics.
1766, whereby the Whig and Tory clubs had nominated one candidate each. By these
38
for
been
Both
Cruger
had
twenty
years
almost
and
avoided
meansan electoral contest
Burke, therefore, representedWhig sentimentin Bristol at this juncture. Both were
believing
influence
discord
`had
`the
that
this
the
to
of
crown'
produced
growing
opposed
39
fabric
Bristol's
`the
trade'.
of
essential
with America' and so undermined
The Whig victory was, however, not totally overwhelming. Burke only beat the Tory
by
Given
Brickdale,
Brickdale's
MP,
Matthew
a
slender
margin.
and
sitting
candidate
American
for
Government's
the
policy this meant that not all voters were
support
issue
be
in
behaviour.
by
It
this
their
to
the
must
voting
colonists, nor swayed
sympathetic
large
his
however,
Brickdale
help
that
to
sums
received
of
government
money
noted,
with
40
election expenses. It was acceptedpractice in this period for candidatesto 'treat' voters
41
food
funded
Brickdale
therefore
this
to meet
well
and ale, and
was
with
requirement.
However, such was the strength of feeling for the two Whig candidatesthat this benign
bribery did not allow Brickdale to prevail. The war with the American colonies did not
begin until 1775 and its actual outbreak changedthe political sceneonce again. Bristol
loyalties.
division
Electorally, the pendulum swung back in favour
a
of
experienced sharp
of those who supportedGeorge III's campaign against the American colonists. Thus,
180
voting for anti-Ministerialcandidatesappearsto havebeenregardedasa lesspalatable

option once the war had begun than it had been in 1774.
Petitions to the Crown on the American issueillustrate moreover that, while opinion was
fairly
divided
between
in
the
the mid-177s, by the end
camps
still
evenly
pro-and anti-war
of the decadethe pro-war camp was firmly in the ascendant.A petition inspired by
Bristol's Tories in September1775pledging loyalty and support for the monarch,
undermines any notion that those with trading interestswere automatically opposedto
42
by
`many
this
pledge was signed
military action, since
merchants'. Bradley notes that not
interests
in
America supportedconciliation. Instead those that saw
trade
merchants
with
all
43
law
à
`king
Parliament.
the
as necessarypart of commercial enterprise' sided with
and
In the mid-1770s, however, opinion was still evenly divided. On 7 October 1775,the
addresssupporting military action received 901 signatories,while just a few days later the
`conciliatory petition' againstthe war gained 978 signatories. 4 This highlights the
importance of the American issueto Bristol in this decade,for the 1,879 people who
signed these two petitions represented35 per cent of Bristol's electorate of 5,384 people in
1774. Burke's election speechin 1774also stressedthe importance of the American issue
to Bristol society. Burke referred to òur unhappy contestwith America' and concluded
that his aim was to `reconcile British superiority with American liberty' 45 By 1778, those
opposing the War found it harder to counteractthe growing tide in favour of the military
illustrated
is
This
by the fact that while a subscription launched in January 1778
campaign.
to support the military campaign raised 21,000, a collection by JosephHarford (a Burke
supporter) for Àmericans detainedas prisoners of war' only amassed363.46It was in this
context that Burke wrote to Champion (his Bristol supporter) in April 1778 and mentioned
that the subscription in support of the war had `madeAmerica abhor the name of Bristol' a7
In June 1779 both the Merchant Society and the Common Council assembledto discussthe
American issue. An addresswas carried supporting government policy and raising 1,000
to èncourageenlistments in the forces', while the proposal tabled by JosephHarford and
Richard Bright for à changeof Ministry' was defeated.48
By 1780 the political climate that had allowed Cruger and Burke to be elected in 1774had
fallen away. Their continued opposition to the war was now out of tune
with the majority
of local opinion. As a result, in the 1780 general election, the joint Tory candidatureof
Matthew Brickdale and Henry Lippincott won a resounding mandate. While Burke
was
clearly not aided by wider factors, particularly the fact that since 1774 many ìnfluential
supporters' had been ruined by the disruption of trade to America, he also paid the price
181
9
from
local
His
the contest
disregarding
for
early
withdrawal
and
poor showing
opinion.
his
interests
Ireland
English
due
his
largely
the
trade
to
of
native
over
promotion
of
were
had
Bristol
previously given support were
ones, and many merchantswho
and specifically
òffended by his conduct'S0Ironically perhaps,given this, Cruger was damagedby his
hostility to Burke. Many of the latter's supportersreputedly refused to vote for Cruger, to
the extent that SamuelPeach(Cruger's father-in-law) was put forward to receive the votes
sl
factor
further
fact
Whigs
Cruger.
A
that the
to
the
those
contributory
was
objected
who
of
Tory candidateswere `staunchsupportersof the King's American policy' and
52
from
George
III.
In 1780, Brickdale
1,000
towards their expenses
subsequentlyreceived
`treat'
Lippincott
to
therefore,
voters, and so make the most of their
placed
well
were,
and
53
political advantageat this point.
The 1781 and 1784 Elections

The suddendeath of Henry Lippincott in January 1781allowed Cruger the chanceto re54
by-election.
in
This by-election illustrated
the ensuing
establish some electoral credibility
two things. Firstly, the victories in 1780 and 1781 suggestthat the conditions that had
in
in
had
favour
domination
1774
Whig
turned
to
of the Tories. The 1780
now
contributed
election had seentwo Tories returned and they were not about to let the advantageslip. In
highlighted
Tories
Whigs'
the
that
the
weakness,
also
rejected a request madeby
a move
the Whig Union club for àn agreement'that would divide `the representationbetweenthe
55
two parties'. The Tories were clearly confident in the candidature of George Daubeny, a
George
had
III
5,000,
to
the
tune
the
of
of
support
and wished to take
received
man who
56
discord
in
`continued
their enemies' camp'. Secondly, despite the fact that
advantageof
the Whigs were divided over the respectivemerits of Cruger or Burke before eventually
choosing the former, the marginal nature of Daubeny's victory revealed that support for an
57
Cruger
had
dissipated
Indeed the insults hurled by
not totally
anti-war candidate such as
.
each side showed that the War still sharply polarised the two parties. Handbills printed by
Daubeny's supporters,for instance,castigatedCruger as a 'foreigner' whose sympathies
were with his native American rebels, and invited àll true Britons' to `try the difference
between American bull beef and the roast beef of Old England (Sic)1.58One anti-Cruger
inserted
satirist
a mock addressfrom `Yankee Doodle', clearly referring to Cruger and
what the writer felt were his true loyalties. The satire ran thus:.
ShouldI be the Objectof your Choice,I begLeaveto assureyou, that I am determinedto supportthe
Independency
of thethirteenstripes,in Oppositionto the Royal Standardof Old England,andto vote
for the Establishment
of Republicanismin Oppositionto your Constitutionin ChurchandState59
.
182
This satire sought to exploit Cruger's American connectionsin order to assistDaubeny's

campaign. Cruger himself referred, in the immediate aftermath of the election, to the
damagethat such invective had wreaked on his campaign.Within the context of declaring
his continued attachmentto `Church and King' Cruger lamentedthat, ìt is the
has
brought
the
to
the
privileges of
upon us the
people which
constitutional attention
b0
disloyalty'
However, Cruger far from lacked support at the 1781 election.
stigma of
Feelings ran high within the city and `many collisions occurred in the streets' between
supportersof the two parties. Thesereachedtheir apogeewhen two Cruger supporterswere
killed, as a result of gunfire dischargedby sailors in a quarrel over the flying of party
flags.61Cruger's ability to retain a measureof electoral credibility may have been due to a
dissipated
for
in the early 1780sboth
Enthusiasm
the
sense
of
war
weariness.
war
growing
both
locally.
In
1782,
for
the Corporation of Bristol and a
early
example,
nationally and
further
local
Parliament
àgainst
the
continuanceof the
meeting of
citizens petitioned
62
by
in
Parliament.
contest', and similar sentimentswere passed motions
Peacewas formally proclaimed on 13thOctober 1783. However, although the 1784

during
divisions
the
thus
occurred
peacetime,
political
of the previous few years
election
63
deep.
At the 1784 generalelection Cruger was able to exact revenge on Daubeny
still ran
by a very slender margin. Brickdale, by comparison,comfortably retained his seat.
Cruger's victory was all the more impressive becauseit overcametwo major obstacles.
Firstly, he had been absentin America when the election was called, and his father-in-law
(Peach) stood to stop the Tories gaining too strong a lead ìn the early days of the
64
struggle' Thus, in contrastto those voting for Brickdale and Daubeny, voters had to bide
their time to vote for Cruger, suggestinga strong personal commitment by voters towards
this candidate. Secondly, Cruger's absencehad given the Tories the opportunity to publish
false claims that he had `torn down and trampled upon the English flag in New York' 65
Such claims would have seriously reducedsupport for a less popular candidate.However,
such calumnies were, in large part, indicative of the increasingly desperatenature of
Daubeny's campaign. His supportersclaimed that Cruger was ineligible to stand since he
was a `Native of America' and this was a `Sovereign State' as 'independent of Great
Britain' as àny other Nation. 66Even after he had been defeated,Daubcny petitioned
67
had
'Cruger
the
the
be
English
that
to
against
result on
grounds
ceased
an
subject',
Despite theseproblems, the end of the war had clearly made conditions ripe for Cruger's
political resurgenceand his supporterscelebratedby `sacking' the Tory headquartersat the
White Lion Inn.68However, the radical Cruger of 1774 was not the same
man in 1784.
Evidence suggeststhat his commitment to radical principles had waned in the intervening
183
decade.In 1781-1782,Cruger had servedas Mayor of Bristol, and his commitment to what
one historian has labelled the `self-perpetuatingoligarchy' that constituted the Bristol
Corporation, contrastsstarkly with his earlier support for Wilkite electoral reform.69
Baigent claims that Cruger appearedless radical over time and that he èven compromised
his principles enoughto accept a governmentpension of 500 a year' in the mid-1780s.70
Nevertheless,he was still perceivedby many contemporariesto be a radical candidatein
the Bristol election of 1774.
AN ANALYSIS OF VOTING BEHAVIOUR

Having provided an overview of electionsin this period, it is now important to provide an
analysis of voting behaviour. Firstly, it is necessaryfirstly to assessthe extent to which the
votes of the shoemaker-electorate(hereafter SE) and the tailor-electorate (hereafter TE)
Comparative
(hereafter
BE)
Bristol
to
the
as
a
whole.
electorate
resultsfor the
compared
displayed
6:
in
1784
in
2,6: 3, and6:4. Theseprovidea
1774,1781,
tables
and
are
elections
Table 6: 2 : 1774 Election: Distribution of Votes per Candidate
BE**
% of
% of
SE**
votes
votes
pop.*
votes
3565
66.21
233
Cruger
39.56
50.28
183
Burke
2707
30.04
45.62
130
Brick
2456
27.26
5.26
5
Clare
283
3.14
9,011
Total
100%
551
* 5,384 Voters; 332 Shoemakers;149 Tailors
Cand.
% of
votes
42.29
33.21
23.59
0.91
100%
% of
pop.*
70.18
55.12
39.16
1.51
-
TE**
votes
104
81
64
3
252
% of
votes
41.27
32.14
25.4
1.19
100%
% of
o*
69.80
54.36
42.95
2.01
Electorate;TE = Tailor Electorate

** BE = Bristol Electorate;SE= Shoemaker
Table 6:3 : 1781Election: Distribution of Votesper Candidate
% of
% of
SEvotes*
TE votes*
votes/ o,
votes/pop.
3143
53.14
184
Daubeny
48.94
82
Cruger
2771
46.86
192
51.06
85
Total
5914
100%
376
100%
167
* BE = Bristol Electorate; SE = ShoemakerElectorate; TE = Tailor Electorate
Candidate
BE votes*
% of
votes/pop.
49.10
50.90
100%
Table 6: 4 : 1784 Election: Distribution of Votes per Candidate

BE**
% of
% of
SE**
votes
votes
P02-*
votes
3358
Brick
34.39
204
55.51
Cruger
3052
31.25
50.45
214
2982
Daub
30.54
49.30
172
373
Peach
6.17
3.82
27
Total
9765
100%
617
o, U49 voters; 387 Shoemakers;184 Tailors
Cand.
% of
votes
33.06
34.68
27.88
4.38
100%
% of
o .*
52.71
55.30
44.44
6.98
-
TE**
votes
114
90
99
12
315
% of
votes
36.19
28.57
31.43
3.81
100%
% of
pop.*
61.96
48.91
53.80
6.52
** BE = Bristol Electorate;SE= Shoemaker

Electorate;TE = Tailor Electorate
breakdownof the mannerin which votesfor the candidatesin all threeelectionswere

cast
amongthe whole electorateandamongshoemakers
andtailors. The resultshavebeen
184
presentedboth in terms of the proportion of all votes cast and as a proportion of the total
electorate.This makesan important difference in a systemwhere every individual was
allowed to cast two votes, and is especiallyimportant when assessingthe popularity of
individual candidatesin contestswhere three or four candidatesstood for election. This can
be illustrated by referenceto a hypothetical situation in which the partnership of
CandidatesA and B were chosenby every voter, while the partnership of CandidatesC and
D gained no votes. In this scenarioan analysisof votes polled would only indicate that
each of the successfulcandidateshad polled 50 per cent of the votes, despite the fact that
100 per cent of the electoratevoted for them. This distinction is most useful with regardsto
the 1774 election. The sheerscaleof Cruger's popularity is not immediately obvious from
his attaining almost 40 per cent of BE votes, but becomesclearer when we know that 66
per cent of all BE voters selectedhis candidature.Cruger's general popularity in 1774 was
mirrored among shoemakersand tailors. The proportion of voters in these groups that
opted for him stood at 70 per cent. Support for Cruger, with his radical programme and
anti-war stance,was therefore high acrossthe electorateas a whole. The voting trends of
Bristol's shoemakersand tailors closely mirrored those of the wider electorate.Thus
shoemaker/tailor support for Burke, which stood at around 55 per cent, was only
marginally higher than among the whole electorate,50 per cent of whom voted for the
Irishman. Brickdale was marginally lesspopular among the trades than among the
electorateas a whole. However, the fact that between 39 and 43 per cent of shoemakers
and tailors voted for Brickdale suggeststhat not all shoemakersand tailors were opposedto
the War nor swayed by this issue.
Table 6:3 reveals the slender nature of Daubeny's victory at the 1781 by-election,
illustrating a difference betweenthe voting behaviour of shoemakersand tailors on the one
hand,andthe Bristol electorateasa whole.While Daubenywon the overall contest,Cruger

would haveachieveda marginalvictory if the voting trendsof the shoemakers
andtailors
had been repeatedamong the electorate. 1781neverthelessmarked a sea change.Far more
shoemakersand tailors voted for Daubeny than had been prepared to vote for IIrickdale in
1774. Daubeny was elected to Parliament on the back of receiving 5,000 from
Government funds, and claimed that }3ristolianswere such enthusiastsfor the American
War that they `were willing to sacrifice half their fortune in the prosecution it'., ' The
of
voting habits of the shoemakersand tailors more or less duplicated the turnaround among
the general electorate.The 1781 figures therefore make it clear that the shoemakers
and
tailors had no enduring commitment to a radical or anti-war candidate. Rather their
habits varied with that of the electorateas a whole.
185
voting
In 1784, as table 6:4 reveals,a variation in the voting trends of the shoemakersand tailors
for
Brickdale,
By
the
who
voted
electorate
with Cruger
general
occurred.
comparisonwith
Cruger
Daubeny,
defeating
at the top of their poll with
put
shoemakers
marginally
Brickdale reasonablywell aheadof Daubeny.However, tailors overwhelmingly backed
Brickdale in first place, with Daubeny a clear secondand Cruger third. Perhapsthe most
just
In
Cruger's
the
tailors.
the
ten years the
collapse of
support among
marked changewas
49
for
dropped
from
70
Cruger
to
tailors
per cent, while, those voting
voting
proportion of
for Brickdale rose from 43 to 62 per cent. Again, theseresults reveal that the two trades,
idiosyncrasies
by
the
their
were,
on
whole,
swayed
of
own,
more
although containing some
for
Brickdale
In
the
tailors,
the
trends.
support
caseof
can be partly
general electoral
had
been
father
by
His
his
the
trade.
a draper in the city and
connectionswith
explained
Matthew Brickdale himself had been a clothier before retiring to focus on his political
hold
his
decision
his
in
These
to
were
reflected
election campaign
connections
career.
72
have
felt
Tailors
had
Hall.
Brickdale
Taylors'
therefore
that
the
their
may
meetings at
interests at heart, especially as he was known to protect the Bristol commercial interest' in
Parliament.73
However, theseresults are very generic,becausethey include out-voters as well as those

isolate
is
important
Bristol-resident
It
(hereafter
lived
BEI)
to
the
city.
voters
within
who
from out-voters (hereafter BEO), Bristol-based shoemakers(hereafter SEI) from out-voting
shoemakers(SEO), and Bristol-based tailors (hereafterTEI) from out-voting tailors (TEO),
in order to more fully assessvoting patterns.This is particularly important becauseof the
fairly large and growing portion of the electoratecomposedof out-voters. The out-voting
portion of the BE rose from 27.58 per cent in 1774 to 34.75 per cent in 1784. Among the
SE this portion rose from 23.19 to 32.3 per cent in the sameperiod, while the TE sample
74
between
34
35
ranged
and per cent. The Bristol situation was far from unique.
O'Gorman, for example, notes that a `significant minority of voters in the unreformed
electoral system did not reside in the places in which they voted', and that the mobility of
labour and crafts renderedoutvoting a natural phenomenonin this unusually mobile
75
society'. Non-resident voters formed 30 per cent of the Newcastle and Dover electorates,
40 per cent of the Leicester electorateand 25 per cent of that in York in this period.76
Tables 6:5,6: 6, and 6:7 distinguish betweenthe votes of in and out-voters for the BE, SE,
and TE constituencies.
186
The figures for 1774reveal that the major force behind Cruger lay in the votes of those
for
including
BEI
Cruger,
in
Bristol.
Thus,
75
70
of
voters
opted
cent
per
actually resident
andtailors,whereasonly around56 per centof all

per centof Bristol-basedshoemakers
for
him.
This is an important
tailors
voted
out-voters, and out-voting shoemakersand
distinctionto make.Differencesbetweenthe supportof in- andout-voterscanbe obscured

Table 6: 5 : 1774 Election: The proportion of Bristol-residents and out-voters that voted for each
Candidate
Brickdale
Burke
Voters*
Cruger
Clare
1731 (44.40%)
1967 50.45%
2731 (70.04%)
241(6.18%)
BEI (3,899)
740 49.83%
725 (48.82%)
BEO (1,485)
834 (56,1601o)
42(2.83%)
95(37.25%)
SEI (255)
190 74.51%
141 (55.29%)
50.96%)
34(44.74%)
SEO (77)
43 (56.58%)
42 (55.26%)
41(41.84%)
53(54.08%)
TEI 98
74(75.51%)
3(3.06%)
28(54.90%)
23 45.10%
TEO 51
30(58.82%)
* BEI = Bristol Electorate In-voters; BEO = Bristol ElectorateOut-voters; SEI = ShoemakerElectorateInvoters; SEO = ShoemakerElectorateOut-voters; TEI = Tailor Electorate In-voters; TEO = Tailor Electorate
Out-voters.
Candidate
Cruger
Voters*
Daubeny
2285 (57.73%)
1673 (42.27%)
BER (3958)
858 43.87%
BEO (1956)
1098 (56.13%)
SER 257
151 58.75%
106 41.25%
SEO (119)
33(27.73%)
86 (72.27%)
TER 110
63(57.27%)
47(42.73%)
19(33.33%)
38(66.67%)
TEO (57)
* BEI = Bristol Electorate In-voters; BEO = Bristol Electorate Out-voters; SEI = ShoemakerElectorate Invoters; SEO = ShoemakerElectorate Out-voters; TEI = Tailor Electorate In-voters; TEO = Tailor Electorate
Out-voters.
Candidate
Voters*
BER (3947)
BEO (2102)
Cruger
1974 50.01%
1078 51.28%
Peach
259(6,56%)
114(5.42%)
Brickdale
2250(57%)
1108 (52.71%)
Daubeny
1960 49.66%
1022 (48.62%)
SER(261)
SEO(125)
TER 119
149 57.09%
66(52.80%)
56(47.06%)
17(6.51%)
10(8%)
9 (7.56%)
145(55.56%)
59(47.20%)
80 67.23%
113(43,30%)
59(47.20%)
66(55,46%)
TEO 65
34(52.31%)
3 4.62%
34 52.31%
33 50.77%
* BEI = Bristol Electorate In-voters; BEO = Bristol Electorate Out-voters; SEI - ShoemakerElectorate Invoters; SEO = ShoemakerElectorate Out-voters; TEI = Tailor Electorate In-voters; TEO - Tailor Electorate
Out-voters,
by poor methodology. Baigent's analysis of the 1774 election makes the mistake, for
example, of confusing the number of votes with the proportion of voters voting for each
candidate, a key error when analysing a two-vote system. On the basis of this, she wrongly
concludes that `Cruger received support from 39.6% of all voters and 41.1% of all
Bristolians', and that Cruger therefore 'received only marginally more support from
city
77
from
than
voters
country ones'.
187
Despite the differences, Cruger still cametop of the poll in 1774 among all the outvoting
fact
for
by
Burke
lower
The
that
the
outvoting
groups
voted
are
ratios
explained
groups.
less
in
Burke
Brickdale
marginally
received
only
numbers.
of the outside vote
and
greater
than Cruger among shoemakersand tailors, suggestingthat outside voters were possibly
familiar
joint
Whig
the
that
to
ticket,
they
were
more
with Burke
or
more committed
becausehe was a national figure. Differences between in- and out-voters were again
marked in 1781 (seetable 6:6), although by contrastwith 1774 out-voting was much
heavier in Cruger's favour. While the majority of out-voters voted for Cruger, Bristolbasedvoters clearly backed Daubeny. Among out-voting shoemakersCruger won a
Bristol-based
70
shoemakersclearly
cent,
while
of
around
per
resounding majority
favoured Daubeny. With regard to the tailors, out-voters also favoured Cruger by a large
for
Daubeny. Thus, out-voters clearly
Bristol-based
tailors
clearly
opted
margin, while
accountedfor the marginal nature of Daubeny's victory, since Bristol-resident voters of all
kinds opted for the Tory candidate.The massivemajority which Cruger obtained among
in
in
brethren
to
tailors
trends
their
was
marked
contrast
among
shoemakers
and
out-voting
Bristol itself, where both groups voted for Daubeny in proportions that mirrored those
in
It
thesetrades that accounted for what
the
out-voters
among
general electorate. was
seemedlike continued support for Cruger among these occupations. Out-voters may have
been more immune to political pressureswithin Bristol itself, and were also less likely to
have been subjectedto anti-Cruger sentimentin the local press.
Phillips has drawn attention to the ways in which out-voters nationally `played a vital role
in elections when they turned out in sufficient numbers', actually altering the 1796 poll in
Norwich, for example, in comparison to the votes of residents.78Out-voters basedin
London also wielded considerablepower as, according to O'Gorman, they often
constituted 10 per cent of the electorate.These findings are ones that are supportedby the
Bristol evidence. Here the proportion of London-resident voters among the total electorate
stood at 8 per cent in 1774,11.5 per cent in 1781, and 14 per cent in 1784.79Much effort
was exerted to win their vote for, being àlive to national and parliamentary
80
ìntervention
decide
their
considerations',
could
a contest'. Perhapsmore significantly
out-voters were also `beyond the limits of deferenceand paternalism' and could therefore
ònly be won through superior organization', at great cost to the campaigning parties who
for
"
inns
food
their
the
the
paid
and accommodationat
of
various candidates. Phillips
notes that the costs of `bringing in out-voters' were part of the `fixed costs of
campaigning', often amounting to bribery since òut-voters often received more than just
travel compensationfor making the journey to cast their votes' 82 It would appearthat in
188
in
in
bringing
out-voters, an
1781 Cruger's electoral campaignwas the most effective
for
Daubeny
three
healthy
all
among
the
majority
absolutely vital requirementgiven
figures
that
breakdown
the
Likewise,
suggests
the
of
Bristol-based
voters.
groups of
in
Bristol
fiasco,
terms
1780
in
1781,
the
was
purely
Cruger's electoral renaissance
after
his
Indeed,
initially
the
figures
almost
out-vote
of
strength
suggest.
not as solid as overall
turned the result in his favour.
from
be
the
Westminster
seen
as
can
restored
1784
was
In
two-party representationat
fact
lead
Bristol
held
While
Brickdale
a
6:
7.
in
among
voters,
a clear
spreadof votes table
Among
Cruger
lead
his
marginal.
final
was
out-voters
in
among
over
result,
reflected the
Brickdale
for
Cruger
in
Bristol
based
while
was
restored,
a clear preference
shoemakers
While
Daubeny
out-voting shoemakersalso put
to
choice.
as a second
was preferred
Among
Daubeny.
Brickdale
tailors,
between
decide
first
and
Cruger
they could not
had
in
but
Cruger
leaders,
third,
outside-voters
Daubeny
Brickdale and
with
were clear
Cruger and Brickdale in joint top place, with Daubeny marginally behind them. The
difference between in- and out-voters was thus far less pronounced suggestingthat the end
had
in
domestic
it
dissension
in
1783,
the
War
politics,
American
and with
of the
dissipated. Overall two things are clear from a comparisonbetween in-and out-voters
differently
those
in
Bristol
to
to
Firstly,
appeared
vote
the
three
voters
elections.
across
habits
Secondly,
issues.
different
the
by
the
of
the
swayed
city, and were evidently
outside
belonged
to,
followed
they
trends
the
group
of
tailors
whichever
generally
shoemakersand
implying that they were strongly influenced by the socio-political climate in which they
lived and worked. To test this hypothesis further it is necessaryto make a further
breakdown of the election results. In the interestsof presenting figures that can be more
into
be
individual
for
transferred
results per
candidatesshall
readily understood,the results
American
Tories
this
between
Whigs
the
divide
Given
process
over
question
the
and
party.
for
illustrates
the
issue,
but
varying positions more
support
this
rather
obscure
will not
83
clearly.
Support for Parties amongMasters and Journeymen

Analysis of party voting habits can begin by comparing the voting patterns of mastersand
journeymen in the shoemakingand tailoring trades.This approach is made possible by the
directories
books.
between
By crossin
trade
time
and
poll
extant
close correlation
it
directories
in
lists
trade
the
the
was possible to isolate a
with
voting
referencing
names
separatesample of masters,with the remainder representing a nominal sample of
journeymen.84While table 6:8 splits all the votes between the two parties for the entire
189
Table 6: 8: The Electorate: The Distribution of Votes between the Whig and Tory Party, 1774-1784
Election/
Whigs
Votes*
4,698
BEI 1774
BEO 1774
1,574
6,272
BE 1774
1,673
BEI 1781
1,098
BEO 1781
BE 1781
2,771
BEI 1784
2,170
1,255
BEO 1784
1 3,425
BE 1784
* SeeTable 6:2 and Table 6:5 for
Tories
70.43%
1,972
767
67.24%
69.60%
2,739
2,285
42.27%
858
56.13%
3,143
46.86%
34.01%
4,210
2 130
37.08%
35.07%
6,340
theseabbreviations.
Total
29.57%
32.76%
30.40%
57.73%
43.87%
53.14%
65.99%
62.92%
64.93%
6,670
2,341
9,011
3,958
1,956
5,914
6,380
3j385
9.765
Table 6: 9: Shoemakers: The Distribution of Votes between the Whig and Tory Party, 1774.1784
Election/
Voters*
SJ 1774
SM 1774
SEI 1774
SEO 1774
SE 1774
SJ 1781
SM 1781
SEI 1781
SEO 1781
SE 1781
SJ 1784
SM 1784
SEI 1784
SEO 1784
SE 1784
Whigs
Tories
Total
262
69
331
85
416
91
15
106
86
192
141
25
166
76
242
76.38%
78.41%
76.80%
70.83%
75.50%
42.33%
35.71%
41.25%
72.27%
51.06%
39.50%
37.31%
39.15%
39.18%
39.16%
81
19
100
35
135
124
27
151
33
184
216
42
258
118
376
23.62%
21.59%
23.20%
29.17%
24.50%
57.67%
64.29%
58.75%
27.73%
48.94%
60.50%
62.69%
60.85%
60.82%
60.84%
343
88
431
120
551
215
42
257
119
376
357
67
424
194
618
SM = MasterShoemakers.
* SJ= Journeymen
SeeTable6:2 andTable6:5 for other
Shoemakers;
abbreviations.
Table 6:10: Tailors: The Distribution of Votesbetweenthe Whig and Tory Party, 1774-1784
Election/
Voters*
TJ 1774
Whigs
Tories
Total
83
83%
17
17%
100
TM 1774
44
61.97%
27
38.03%
71
TEI1774
TEO 1774
TE 1774
TJ 1781
TM 1781
TEL 1781
TEO 1781
TE 1781
TJ 1784
TM 1784
TEI1784
TEO1784
TE 1784
127
58
185
32
15
47
38
85
40
25
65
37
102
74.27%
71.60%
73.41%
49.23%
33.33%
42.73%
66.67%
50.9%
31,75%
28.74%
30.52%
36.27%
32.38%
44
23
67
33
30
63
19
82
86
62
148
65
213
25.73%
28.40%
26.59%
50.77%
66.67%
57.27%
33.33%
49.1%
68.25%
71.26%
69.48%
63.73%
67.62%
171
81
252
65
45
110
57
167
126
87
213
102
315
* TJ = Journeymen
Tailors;TM = MasterTailors.SeeTable6:2 andTable6:5 for otherabbreviations.
190
data
This
for
tailors.
the
do
6:
9
6:
10
and
the
shoemakers
Bristol electorate,tables
same
and
is further divided betweenjourneymen shoemakers(hereafterSJ) and mastershoemakers
(hereafter SM), and betweenjourneymen tailors (hereafterTJ) and master tailors (hereafter
TM). Analysis of the 1774 and 1784election results must incorporate an understandingof
in
In
Tory
these
Whig
elections.
the
parties
and
the relative strengthsand weaknessesof
1774 a strong Whig organisationfielded two main candidates(Cruger/Burke) and was
(Brickdale).
By
Tory
by
candidate
one
only
with
organisation
opposed a weakened
forward
two
Tory
in
1784
main candidates
put
organisation
a rejuvenated
contrast,
(Brickdale/Daubeny), and was faced by a weakenedWhig camp with only one candidate
(Cruger). Given that the party contestin 1774and 1784was therefore unequal, a measured
in
both
1774
(main)
that
for
interpret
three
and
the
stood
the
candidates
votes
analysis can
1784 in the following way. If all the votes were spreadequally between the candidatesthen
for
In
the
33.33
this
have
cast.
sense
a
showing
of
all
cent
votes
per
received
each would
Tories and Whigs in 1774 and 1784 respectively, when both only fielded one candidate,of
for
in
Likewise
terms.
the
33.33
showing
real
a
a'victory'
represent
would
cent
per
above
Whigs and Tories in 1774 and 1784respectively, when both fielded two candidates,of
in
`victory'
Thus
terms.
66.66
a party was
real
a
also
represent
per cent would
above
ùnder-supported' when its proportion of the vote fell below the level expectedfrom an
its
level.
This
this
òver-supported'
proportion
rose
above
method
when
equal share,and
in
for
1784.
1774
and
each
party
permits a more rigorous assessmentof support
Table 6:8 appearsto indicate that the Bristol electorateas a whole showed no consistent
leaning towards any particular party. While the Whigs were slightly òver-supported' in
1774, in 1784 the ratios betweenthe parties were almost exactly what one would expect
in
9
6:
Table
that,
the
reveals
contrast to the whole
per
party.
given
number of candidates
behind
both
1774
Whig
In
the
party.
and
aligned
electorate,shoemakerswere very much
1784, although especially in the former year, the shoemakersòver-supported' Whig
byby-election
in
1781
blip
in
Cruger
The
this
trend
the
a
was
at
particular.
candidatesand
These
Bristol
trends.
trends showed
and
voting
on
politics
of
pressures
war-time
product
little discrepancybetween those of mastersandjourneymen, as both showed strong levels
between
by
differences
Whig
By
the
cast
votes
employee and
support.
contrast,
of
illustrates,
10
in
As
6:
journeymen
trade
table
tailoring
the
marked.
were more
employer
tailors strongly òver-supported' the Whigs in 1774, when the party received a massive 83
per cent shareof their votes, while mastertailors actually ùnder-supported' the Whigs and
òver-supported' the Tories. Even in 1781 the support for Cruger amongjourneymen
tailors stood up well. Daubeny polled just one vote more than Cruger among this group.
191
The reasonfor thesesharpdistinctions may lie in discord between mastersandjourneymen

industrial
during
disputesthat occurredat thesetimes. The discord produced
the
witnessed
by the 1773 tailors' dispute may have hardenedthejourneymen against the views of their
mastersin the 1774 election, while support for Cruger in 1781 may have partly reflected
85
discord
by
industrial
in
the
created
action that year as well. These industrial disputes,as
well as one in 1777, and the militant stanceadoptedmay have meant that journeymen
tailors were more radicalised by the American War than other journeymen. By contrast,
master tailors were more inclined to vote for the Tory interest, perhapspartly becauseof
the already cited connectionsof this trade with Matthew Brickdale. Such factors may also
joined
journeymen
1784
their mastersin casting votes
the
tailors
turnaround,
when
explain
that slightly ùnder-supported'the Whigs. Thus, the ending of the War in 1783, in addition
to the fact that a period of relative industrial peacehad begun, may have madejourneymen
more amenableto the wishes of their masters.
Journeymenwere normally expectedto follow their masters' views. In February 1781, for
example, one writer lambastedCruger for having encouraged'labouring freemen' back in
1774 to 'vote in opposition to their masters'.86The writer further warned that he was again
(in 1781) `spiriting up the journeymen freemento disoblige their mastersand thereby to
87
families
to
the
samemiserable situation'. Such propagandawas
reduce them and their
inaccurate
with regard to the shoemakingtrade where mastershad showed the
certainly
sameenthusiasmfor Cruger in 1774 as their journeymen. A letter sent to Felix Farley's
Bristol Journal by À JourneymanShoemaker'in January 1781 emphasisedthis point as
well as the influence of masterson the votes of their journeymen. The journeyman
recounted a conversationin which the master showed an acknowledgementthat his
journeyman 'was always a friend to the Blue (Tory) interest', but hoped he would vote for
Cruger, to which the journeyman replied, Ì have no objection to be sure to oblige you'. 88
Among master tailors, however, Cruger was received less wholeheartedly, asjourneymen
in this trade (unlike their shoemakingcounterparts)were more likely to run counter to their
mastersby registering a Whig vote. In 1780the war of propaganda,waged through the
newspapers,appearsto have beenwon by Daubeny. This was despite the best efforts of a
'Tradesman' who urged `Journeymenof all Trades' to `vote for Cruger'. The writer
contrastedDaubeny, who was responsiblefor spreading `poverty, distress and misery
through the land', with Cruger who had protected Bristol's trade in Parliament.89 ProDaubeny articles were, however, more numerous and many were seemingly submitted by
journeymen themselves.Thus, a `JourneymanBarber' was clearly on Daubeny's
side when
he urged his `Brethren and Fellow Labourers' to back the candidate who ìs
friend
to
a real
192
OLD ENGLAND (sic)' rather than one `who from principle wishes successto the
90
Hatter'
`Journeyman
Congress'.
Likewise,
American
a
representedmistrust of
rebellious
those sympathetic to America, stating his belief that `the sticklers for American
Independenceundoubtedly meanto go over wheneverit is separatedfrom us and receive
91
the reward of their treason'. This literature tendsto reinforce the view that once the war
felt
journeymen,
duty
bound
including
to support
voters,
numerous
was under way many
their country. By 1784,however, the political terrain had shifted once again, for despite
false claims that Cruger had trampled on the British flag in America, a return to parity
between the parties was the order of the day.92A `Freeman' encapsulatedthe new mood
looked
for
Cruger
Brickdale
be
`those
he
that
must
and
upon as
who vote
when urged
lovers of peace' and were the `true friends to the trade, commerce and best interestsof the
93
Bristol'.
The strength of the propagandaclearly reflected the voting patterns
city of
favoured
Whig
While
1784
in
1784.
1781
the
shoemakers
camp,
until
masters
and
evident
between
Tories
Whigs
in
the
journeymen
trade
the
tailoring
split
and
were
and
respectively.
VOTING BY PARISH/AREA
However, these figures take no account of where voters lived and it is necessaryto
investigate whether social demographyhad any bearing on voting behaviour. It is
living
in
largely
by
important
to
artisans
areas
populated
ascertain
whether
particularly
in
in
living
from
differently
those
areas
which elite groups
other artisansvoted
lies
Given
this
that
the
chapter
with comparing the voting trends
concern
of
predominated.
decision
in
taken
the
tailors
the
total
to
a
was
electorate,
proceed
with
of shoemakersand
following manner. Firstly eachparish has been designatedas either an artisan or nonartisan parish, on the basis of Baigent's extensivesurvey of the socio-economic
defined
in
1770s.
Baigent
Bristol
the
an àrtisan parish' as one in
society
composition of
in
in
low
àrtisans
trades
those
status
predominated',
and
middle
contrast to the
which
and
`wealthy trading parishes' in central Bristol such as St. Nicholas, or `genteel suburban
4
Augustine,
Clifton.
St.
St.
Her classification therefore
Michael and
parishes' such as
divided
Firstly,
Bristol
be
into
the easternparishes which were
three
to
areas.
allows
heavily populated by artisans,and which consistedof Castle Precincts, St. James,St. Peter,
St.
Philip.
Secondly, the southernparishesthat were also largely populated by artisans
and
and labourers, and which consistedof Bedminster, St. Mary Redeliff, St. Thomas, and
Temple. Thirdly, the central and western parishesof Bristol, being areasthat were either
socially mixed or dominated by elite social groups. Aggregate party allegiances for each
193
the
both
tailors.
the
total
among
and
shoemakers
and
electorate,
amongst
were
sought,
area
The results are presentedin tables 6: 11,6: 12 and 6: 13.
An analysis of voting trends in the easternareahighlights support for the Whig party, and
Cruger in particular, among artisans.Thus, in 1774,all voters in this àrtisan' area 'overby
that
78
the
Whigs
the
tune
to
the
were
surpassed
proportions
cent,
of
per
supported'
in
Cruger's
held
in
1781
in
Even
the
support
this
tailors
eastern
area
area.
shoemakersand
firm. It was the only area of Bristol where he gained a majority in this year. However,
less
in
this
than
tailors
for
Cruger
area
was
among all
and
shoemakers
among
support
loyal
àrtisan'
to
the
population
were
more
that
the
eastern
rest
of
voters, suggesting
Cruger than thesetwo trades.In 1784,however, shoemakersonce again òver-supported'
Cruger to the sameextent as all voters, while the tailors only slightly òver-supported' the
by
be
latter
to
the
The
Whig
explained
reference
earlier
can
anomaly
candidate.
sole
by
by
in
influenced
1784,
their
journeymen
tailors
that
masters
and
only
were
observation
in
Brickdale
Overall
Tory
to
the
tailors
to
particular.
and
party
the allegiance of master
in
for
Cruger
the easternarea. This appearsto
large
doubt
little
the
there was
of
support
have been partly a reflection of longer voting patterns.Thus, Nicholas Rogers points to the
long-term nature of Whig support in this areathroughout the eighteenth century, and
for
Whig
those
the
`parishes
their
were
that
presence
where
noncomformist
noted
remarks
Whig
down
`remained
St.
Philip
to the
St.
James
stronghold
a
right
and
was strongest'.
1780s'.95A more pervasive influence than religion was the belief that Cruger defended
Bristol's trade and supportedthe poor. Thus, in 1781 a letter-writer from St. James
lambastedDaubeny for supporting `that destructive War which has nearly ruined our
foreign Tradeandso heavilyloadedus with Taxes',while Crugerwaspresentedasa

46
(sic)'
Namier andBrookeassertthat
`Lover of the Poor' and ànEncouragerof Trade
Table 6: 11 : The Bristol Electorate (BEI): Distribution of Votes per Party in three areas of Bristol,
1774-1784
o
To
Total
Whig %
Year
Area*
647 21.56%
3001
2354 78.44%
1774
Eastern (1682)
531 35.66%
958 64.34%
1489
1774
Southern (944)
794 36.42%
1386 63.58%
1774
2180
Non-artisan (1273)
1,972 (29.57%)
4,698 70.43%
Total (3,899)
1774
6,670
883 (49.08%)
916 (50.92%)
Eastern (1,799)
1781
1799
594 65.49%
313 34.51%
907
Southern 907
1781
808 64.54%
444 (35.46%)
Non-artisan (1252)
1781
1252
2,285 (57.73'Yo)
1,673 (42.27%)
Total (3,958)
1781
3,958
1472 55.11%
1199 44.89%
Eastern (1742)
1784
2671
1201 (76.74%)
Southern 951
1784
364 23.26%
1565
Non-artisan (1254)
1537 71.69%
1784
607 28.31%
2144
4,210(65.99%)
Total (3,947)
2,170 (34.01%)
1784
6 380
* Eastern= Artisan parishesof Castle Precincts, St. James,St. Philip and St. Peter.
Southern = Artisan parishesof Bedminster, St. Mary Redcliff, St. Thomas, and Temple.
Non-artisan= Sociallymixedparishesof All Saints,Christchurch,Clifton, St. Augustine,St. John,St.

Leonard,St. Maryport,St. Michael,St.Nicholas,andSt. Stephen.
194
Table 6: 12 : The Shoemakers (SEI): Distribution of Votes per Party in three areas of Bristol,
1774-1784
Year
Whig (%)
Area*
1774
206 (82.40%)
Eastern 138
71 70.30%
1774
Southern (69)
1774
54 67.5%
Non-artisan (48)
331 76.80%
1774
Total (255)
1781
60 43.17%
Eastern 139
33 (45.83%)
1781
Southern (72)
13 28.26%
1781
Non-artisan (46)
1781
106 (41.25%)
Total (257)
1784
99(46.92%)
Eastern (137)
45 37.5%
1784
Southern (72)
22(23.66%)
1784
Non-artisan 52
1784
166 39.15%
Total (261)
* SeeTable 6: 11 for a breakdown of parishesper area.
Tory (%)
44(17.60%)
30 (29.70%)
26(32.5%)
100 (23.20%)
79(56.83%)
39(54.17%)
33(71.74%)
151 (58.75%)
112(53.08%
75(62.5%)
71(76.34%)
258 60.85%
Total
250
101
80
431
139
72
46
257
211
120
93
424
Table 6: 13 : The Tailors (TEI): Distribution of Votes per Party in three areas of Bristol, 1774-1784
Whig (%)
Year
Area*
97 (84.35%)
1774
Eastern (62)
10(45.45%)
1774
Southern (16)
1774
20 58.82%
Non-artisan (20)
127 (74.27%)
1774
Total (98)
27 46.55%
1781
Eastern (58)
1781
6(25%)
Southern (24)
1781
14(50%)
Non-artisan (28)
1781
47(42.73%)
Total (110)
42L37,38%)
1784
Eastern (62)
9 16.361/o
1784
Southern (26)
16(31.37%)
1784
Non-artisan 31
65(30.52%)
1784
Total (119)
* SeeTable 6: 11 for a breakdown of parishesper area.
Tory %
18(15.65%)
12 (54.55%)
14(41.18%)
44(25.73%)
31 (53.451/o)
18(75%)
14(50%)
63(57.27%)
67(62.62%)
46 83.64%
35(68.63%)
148 (69.48%)
Total
115
22
34
171
58
24
28
110
107
55
51
213
Cruger's attention to Bristol affairs, and subsequentneglect of parliamentary life, may

97
Bristol'. In this
discord
`popular
he
the
explainwhy
wasso
with
poorerclassesat
regard,
between Richard Champion (Burke's campaignmanager)and Cruger was allegedly further

inflamed by `the superior attitude Champion adoptedtowards many of Cruger's supporters
98
from
drawn
the artisan classes'.
were
who
Given this evidence it is therefore hardly surprising that the easternarea, so dominated by
Whig
for
the
support
party, and especially for Cruger.
such
artisans, should show
strong
On this basis, one would expect the Southernarea,equally populated by artisansand
labourers, to likewise show a predisposition towards the Whig interest. However, the
Southernareain fact showeda markedbiastowardthe Tory interest,with the resultthat

duringtheir triumphantyear of 1774,andwere
the Whigs wereslightly ùnder-supported'
vastly ùnder-supported' in 1784. This trend was reinforced among the votes of tailors in
this area,asthey vastly ùnder-supported'

the Whigsand òver-supported'the Toriesin
both 1774and 1784.By contrast,shoemakers
in the Southernareadisplayeda slight pro.
195
Whig bias which suggeststhat they were pulled betweenthe loyalties of their counterparts
in the eastand the strong pro-Tory ethosof those amongwhom they lived and worked.
Southern-basedshoemakerstherefore went againstthe grain for the area, and slightly
òver-supported' the Whigs in 1774 and 1784.The marginal nature of this fact can be
Bristol.
influence
Tory
this
the
to
the
of
area
of
on
strength
attributed
Such differences betweentwo areasof similar socio-economiccomposition can only be
local
by
in
the
allegiances
affected
religious
ways which
politics.
satisfactorily explained
While the easternparisheswere dominatedby non-conformist affiliations, Baigent has
in
for
Tory
for
the southern parisheson the basis
the
candidates
strong support
accounted
latter
Church.
The
influence
the
the
was supportive of proestablished
of
of
strong
Anglican
that
systemsof charitable relief were marked
and
given
candidates,
government
99
for
Brickdale
in theseparishes,strong support
existed Such differences help to explain
the variations in voting patterns,and are illustrated by letters to the newspaperpress from
based
for
in the southern
In
January
1781,
a
shoemaker
example,
southern-basedartisans.
be
`to
being
Cruger
Redcliff
St.
Mary
unfit
a guardian of the British
of
accused
parish of
100
He further claimed that his `fellow labourers' would `defend to the last
constitution'.
101
laws
King,
their
their
enemies'. In the eastern
and their religion againstall
man their
ìnfluence
less
by
Church
Baigent
Rogers
the
that
the
agree
of
and
was
parishes, contrast,
have
been
felt'
`the
as
might
result was anti-Ministerial
expectedgiven
strongly
and so
102
lived
there'. Both differences in religion and
their poverty and the artisan workforce who
in
large
in
the
therefore
trends
part
composition
explain
variations
socio-economic
between the Easternand Southernareas.
The trends in central and western Bristol are perhapsbest encapsulatedby the fact that the
best Whig result came in 1774when this party was slightly ùnder-supported' by all voters
by
òver-supported'
tailors,
shoemakers.In both 1781 and
and
and were very marginally
1784, the Whigs were vastly ùnder-supported'by all voters and by shoemakers,although
tailors showed a greater disposition to vote for Cruger. The limited Whig vote in this area
among shoemakersproves that voting was not necessarily trade-specific, and that the
in
manner which politics impacted upon the immediate socio-economic milieu was often
important.
The fact that shoemakingsupport for the Whigs declined in areaswhere
more
those of a higher social statuslived was therefore likely related to this factor. In 1774, for
example, it was certainly clear that high-ranking civic dignitaries did not approve of
Cruger and Burke. In theseyears, ònly two aldermen supported Burke and Cruger' while
103
`clergyman
in
By contrast, Brickdale received a lot of
the city supportedBurke'.
no
196
support from, in Baigent's words, `the clergy and gentry, the urban patriciate, and the
Corporation who representedauthority within the town. 104Likewise, Rogers notes that,
during the 1781 election, Daubeny was able to draw on 'more support from the gentlemen,
15
it
is
While
Cruger.
trades'
than
clear that the voting
professions, merchantsand genteel
habits of shoemakersand tailors largely mirrored those of the communities in which they
lived, it is also clear that the easternparishesrepresentedthe real stronghold of the Whig
interest
is
further
by
Whig
illustrated
importance
The
to
the
the
the
of
easternarea
party.
fact that votes in this areaconstitutedthe largestproportion of any single area.Around 45
from
in
the easternparishes.
these
elections came
per cent of all votes
PARTISAN VOTING
While differences in party preferencewere therefore shapedby social demography,votes
for certain parties also representeda growth in partisan voting. However, given that voters
delineate
it
is
important
to
the proportion of voters
two
votes
were allowed a maximum of
double
full
known
hereafter
the
as
voters, and those who only utilised
used
allocation,
who
`plumpers'
known
`plumpers'.
The
enablesan understandingof
of
proportion
one vote,
as
the nature of partisan voting, since single votes were clearly intended to maximise support
for a particular candidate.Plumping was therefore potentially an important issuewith
Tory
in
Bristol
that
the
to
this
and Whig parties only stood
given
period,
regard
elections
one candidate in 1774 and 1784respectively. The pattern of `plumping' for a single
has
been
in
`necessary
three
characterised
as
candidates
plumping'
candidate a contest of
by Phillips and O'Gorman. 106In a three-corneredcontest,victory was won by the side
`which could encouragethe voters to vote for the two candidateswho were running
together' or to the `single candidatewho could convince his supportersto refrain from
107
his
In
help
this regard, Brickdale
their
thus
opponents.
second
and
using
votes
for
failed
him, while, in 1784,
to
to
vote
vote
voters
only
obviously
convince enough
Cruger succeededin convincing enough voters to vote for him alone. To assesswhether
`necessaryplumping' was a commonly-usedtactic at Bristol elections, one needsto
enquire whether areaswith a bias towards the party representedby a single candidate in
each casedisplayed a higher ratio of plumping votes, compared to areaswhere the party
fielding two candidateswas popular. The proportional split of the electorate in each area
between `plumpers' and double voters was therefore ascertained.108This revealed that
`necessaryplumping' was indeed an important factor in Bristol elections of the period.
While plumpers formed less than 25 per cent of the Eastern electorate in 1774, which is not
surprising given the huge Whig support in this area, almost 50 per cent of voters here used
a plumping vote in 1784.Not surprisingly this was the year when Cruger neededthese
197
votes to overturn the strong Brickdale/Daubenyplatform. This trend was duplicated among
the shoemakersand tailors of the Easterndistrict. By contrast, in the Tory-supporting
Southernareasplumpers madeup 42 per cent of the electoratein 1774, and a majority
among the shoemakers(54%) and tailors (63%). In 1784,however, plumpers constituted
only a third of all voters and of shoemakers,andjust IS per cent of tailors. Thus, while
plumping was highest in SouthernTory-supporting parishesin 1774, in 1784 it was of
most relevancein the Whig-supporting parishesin the Easternareasof the city. The Bristol
elections of 1774 and 1784therefore representexamplesof `necessaryplumping'.
Plumping, as O'Gorman notes, was not always seenas a necessaryexercise.'09The ratio of
`plumping' votesthereforevariedconsiderably,in 1774,for example,5 and 1.8per centof

in
voters Southamptonand Newcastle respectively used a plumping vote, while only 1.1
per cent of the York electoratedid so in 1784.However, plumpers constituted a fair
proportion of the Cirencesterelectorate,ranging from 31 per cent in 1768 to 22 per cent in
1790.110
Table 6: 14 : The Shoemakers:Distribution of 'Plumper' and Double votesper Party, 1774-1784
Type of Voter
Plumpers
Doubles
Total
Plumpers
Doubles
Grand Total
Plumpers
Doubles
Total
Plumpers
Doubles
Grand Total
Area/Year
Bristol 1774
Bristol 1774
Bristol 1774
Out-vote 1774
Out-vote 1774
1774
Bristol 1784
Bristol 1784
Bristol 1784
Out-vote 1784
Out-vote 1784
1784
Whig
24(29%)
139(81%)
163(64%)
42(98%)
205(62%)
100(100%)
17(10%)
117(45%)
55(98%)
10(14%)
182(47%)
Tory
59(71%)
4(2%)
63 25%
34(100%)
97(29%)
113(70%)
113(43%)
1(2%)
58(85%)
172(44%)
Whig/Tory
29(17%)
29(11%)
1 2%
30(9%)
32(20%)
3202%)
1 1%
33 (9%)
Total
83
172
255
34
43
332
100
162
262
56
69
387
Table 6: 15: The Tailors: Distribution of `Plumper' and Double votes per Party, 1774-1784
Type of Voter
Area/Year
Whig
Tory
Plumpers
Bristol 1774
4 16%
21(84%)
Doubles
Total
Plumpers
Doubles
Grand Total
Plumpers
Doubles
Total
Plumpers
Doubles
Grand Total
Bristol 1774
Bristol 1774
Out-vote 1774
Out-vote 1774
1774
Bristol 1784
Bristol 1784
Bristol 1784
Out-vote 1784
Out-vote 1784
1784
53(73%)
57(59%)
3(4%)
24(24%)
21(100%)
28(93%)
85(57%)
33(97%)
901%)
42(35%)
28(100%)
45(30%)
1(3%)
65 (76%)
66 55%
-3(8%)
73(40%)
31(84%)
97{52%)
Whig/Tory
Total
25
17(23%)
1707%)
2(7%)
19(13%)
11(13%)
1100%)
3(8%)
14 (8%)
73
98
21
30
149
34
85
119
28
37
184
The extentof partisanvoting canbe furtherunderstoodby dividing the doublevotersinto

`straight'party voters,beingthosewho awardedboth votesto candidatesof the
same
198
"
1
`split'
party, and
voters, whereby two votes went to candidatesof each party. Tables
6: 14 and 6: 15 reveal the mannerin which both `plumping' and double votes were spread
between the parties as well as the extent to which `necessaryplumping' was used as a
tactic during the Bristol elections of 1774and 1784.In 1774,plumping among shoemakers
was clearly intended by Tory supportersof that trade to bolster Brickdale's chances.Thus,
80 per cent of double voters were `straight' voters for the Whig platform of Cruger and
Burke. However, a significant minority of plumpers (29%) used a single vote for a Whig
candidate,primarily for Cruger, tending to reinforce the argument that some Whig
supporterswere far from happy with Burke's candidature.The processwas even more
for
80
Brickdale, while over
tailors
opted
cent
as
over
of
plumpers
pronounced among
per
70 per cent of double voters were `straight' Whig voters. In 1784,plumper votes for
Cruger accountedfor 100 per cent of shoemakers'votes, and 97 per cent of tailors' votes.
Accordingly, the `straight' Tory vote represented70 and 76 per cent of double voters
among the shoemakersand tailors respectively. Thesetrends were repeatedacrossthe
entire electorate,with the result that Cruger accruedenough votes from `necessary
plumpers' to beat Daubeny into secondplace. Out-voters witnessed an even more emphatic
division of interests.In both tradespractically all the double votes were used to the
advantageof the two-candidateparty, while nearly all the plumping votes were cast for the
`necessary' single candidate.This trend among out-voters is not surprising given that party
machines took particular care to organiseout-voters to their own tactical advantage,and
spent large sumsbringing in thesevoters and looking after them once they had arrived.
However, the relative congruity of tactical voting habits between in- and out-voters
suggeststhat electoral campaignswere also gearedtowards ensuring that Bristol-residents
utilised their vote in highly tactical ways. Overall, the fact that most voters either utilised a
plumping or a `straight' vote indicated that most voters opted to back a political party in
each election.
However, such allegianceswere not necessarilyset in stone. While the Whigs were clearly
favoured by shoemakersin 1774 and 1784 (in the latter year Cruger was more popular
among this group than Brickdale and Daubeny put together), tailors displayed a greater
tendency to shift towards the Tories in 1784.Party preferencewas therefore a strong
element in voting choice, with the result that `split' voters only accounted for around 12
per cent of Bristol-based shoemakers,and between 10 and 17 per cent of Bristol-based
tailors. These votes were similar to trends acrossthe Bristol-based electorate as a whole in
1774. Baigent's study reveals that while 56 per cent of the Bristol-based electoratevoted
Whig, 28 per cent voted Tory and the remaining 16 per cent split their votes, thus yielding
199
'
12
division
between
for
The
`straight'
figures
tailors.
to
those
shoemakers
and
party
similar
Cirencester,
At
for
in
Bristol
`split'
to
elsewhere.
example,
voting wassimilar
voting and
in
1768,
86
12
the
the
while
electorate
remaining
constituted
per
cent
of
per
party voters
cent were `split' voters. Likewise, in Southamptonparty voters constituted 78 per cent of
113
22
in
1774
`split'
per cent were
voters.
while
voters
Experienced Voters
While Bristol elections therefore manifestedstrong elementsof both party and partisan
for
figures
little
blocks
habits,
the
the
above
groups
offer
aggregated
of
voting
backed
To
candidates
certain
or
consistently
parties.
of
whether
voters
understanding
individuals
behaviour
it
is
to
the
this
of
who voted in
necessary access voting
examine
isolate
is
It
to
than
therefore
samplesof experiencedvoters in
one election.
necessary
more
both trades, in order to gaugewhether commitments to one party were consistently
followed. Over the three elections studiedhere identical namesof voters were matched.
This processyielded 555 individual shoemakersand 266 individual tailors, of whom 349
shoemakersand 155 tailors voted in either two or three elections. A match was considered
to have occurred when both name and trade matched,even if parish or areaof residence
had changed.Of the 349 shoemakersisolated as experiencedvoters, 110 (31.5%) had
moved as had 41(26.5%) of the 155 tailors.
These figures reflect fairly standardlevels of mobility given both the uncertainty of work
in the period and mobility trends establishedin chapter two. The problems of locating
experiencedvoters are not novel. Phillips, for example,used 'nominal record linkage' in
his quest for those who voted in numerouselections in various places over the period
between 1761 and 1802.14His methodsreinforce those used here becausePhillips
in
detail
diverged
they
over òne major point' such as àddress
matched nameseven when
'
15
its
Naturally,
nature, matching occupations was crucial to this
occupation'.
given
or
study with the result that occupational mismatcheswere not a problem. The relatively short
time span also meant that the chancesof the samename and occupation being sharedby
two different individuals were less likely. This study therefore required less sophisticated
matching techniquesthan those deployed by Phillips who was studying of whole
electoratesover decadesthereby rendering record linkage a major issue. Phillips compared
lists
voting
with `tax rolls' in order to substantiatethe accuracy of his data. This system
was, however, unnecessaryin this study not least becauseBristol's tax returns excluded
'
16
journeymen
because
listed
data.
The fact that
this
most
and
occupational
evidencerarely
the proportions of experiencedshoemakingand tailoring voters roughly tally with those
200
establishedby O'Gorman for the Bristol electorateas a whole supports the reliability of the
because
O'Gorman's
is
This
taken.
the
study utilised an extended
especially
case
approach
in
laid
6:
linkage
16,reaffirmsthe validity of the
The
table
out
results,
record
practice.
(TE)
between
here,
differentials
tailors
the
andO'Gorman's
as
methodologyemployed
Table 6: 16: Experienced Voters as a Proportion of the Electorate, 1781 and 1784
Constituency*
Year
Previous election
% of voters
_experienced
50%
60%(228)
82%(36)
54%(91)
67% 31
67%
77%(300)
88%(38)
73%(135)
85% 41
1774
1781
BE**
1781
1774
SE 376
1774
1781
SM 44
1774
TE (167)
1781
1774
1781
TM 46
1781
1784
BE**
1781
1784
SE 387
1784
1781
SM 43
1781
TE 184
1784
1784
TM 48
1781
* Seeprevious tables for abbreviations.
** Figures for the total electorateare taken from O'Gorman, Voters,Patrons and Parties, pp. 194-195.
figureswereonly 4 and6 per centrespectively,while thosefor the shoemakers

(SE)were
10 per cent higher than among the Bristol electorate.The Bristol figures were not unusual.
In Liverpool 65.5 per cent of voters in the 1784election had voted in 1780, while 77.4 per
Overall these figures imply that shoemaking
cent of voters in 1790 had voted in 1784.117
votersamongtheir ranksthanthe
andtailoring constituencies
numberedmoreexperienced
Bristol electorateasa whole.However,O'Gorman'sfigure for the Bristol electorate
representedan average.This meansthat they conceal variations between different
occupationalandsocialgroups.Theproportionsof experiencedvotersamongthe clergy

and sailors would, for example, be at opposite extremesof the scale. While the proportion
of experiencedvoters among mastersmay seemvery high, this is to be expected
considering the time and expenseit took to establisha business,and not least to build and
retain a customerbase.
Having establisheda fairly accuratesampleof individual shoemakers
andtailorswho
in
voted at leasttwo elections,it is possibleto analysewhetherthe party choicesof these
individualschangedmarkedlyduringthe courseof the threeelections.Table6: 17looks at
the voting records of voters to establishthe proportions who consistently voted for the
sameparty. The voting recordwasbrokendownbetweenthosewho only evervotedfor

Whig or Tory candidates,andthosewho at somestagevoted for candidatesof both parties.
Table 6: 17thereforemakestwo importantcontributionsto our understandingof the
consistencyof voting habitsamongexperiencedvoters.Firstly, it revealsthat the
proportionof experiencedvoterswho at somestagemixed their party allegianceswashigh
201
enough to suggestthat partisanvoting was particular to specific elections. Thus, 50 per

cent of all shoemakerswho voted in all three elections at some stage voted for at least one
Tory or one Whig candidate.This is a high ratio consideringthat in 1781 there could be no
`split' voting. The fact that 30 per cent of shoemakersvoting in two elections mixed their
vote is also fairly high, consideringthat 69 per cent of this sample voted in the 1781and
Table 6: 17: The Shoemakers and Tailors: Party Choices of Experienced voters, 1774-1784
Whig/Tory (%)
Trade*
Tory %
Elections
Whig (%)
20(60,61%)
SM
3
2(6.06%)
11 33.33%
27(17.09%)
77 48.73%
SJ**
3
54 (34.18%)
97(50.79%)
SE Total
3
65(34.03%)
2905.18%)
3(33.33%)
4 44.45%
SM
2
2(22.22%)
45(30.20%)
SJ**
2
52(34.90%)
52(34.90%)
48(30.38%)
SE Total
2
54(34.18%)
56(35.44%)
SE Grand Tot. 2&3
85(24.36%)
145 41.54%
119 (34.10%)
16(57.14%)
3
5(17.86%)
TM
7(25%)
3
29(60.42%)
TJ**
9(18.75%)
10(20.83%)
3
45 59.21%
TE Total
16(21.05%)
15(19.74%)
5_(31,25%)
TM
2
4(25%)
7(43.75%)
20(31.75%)
TJ**
2
25(39.68%
18(28.57%)
25(31.65%)
2
29(36.70%)
25(31.65%)
TE Total
2&3
TE Grand Tot
45 29.03%
40(25.81%)
70(45.16%)
* Seeprevious tables for abbreviations.
** This figure included all experiencedvoters not identified as masters.
Total
33
158
191
9
149
158
349
28
48
76
16
63
79
155
1784 elections, and that `split' voting was only possible in 1784. Among the tailors, almost
60 per centof thosewho votedin threeelectionsat somestagevoted for candidatesof both

parties.
The high proportionsof voterswho at somestage swappedparty allegiancesmay be

indicativeof the changingpressures
in
Bristol
this period.However,it is
politics
upon
important not to overstatethe proportion of voters who `split' their party allegiance, since
table 6: 17 reveals that large minorities stayedloyal to eachparty. This leads to the second
point, the extentof Cruger'shugepopularityamongboth trades.This is especially

importantso if onerecallsthat the vastmajority of Burke's votesin 1774werecastin
tandem with votes for Cruger, and that the latter was the only serious Whig contenderin
1781 and 1784. The proportion of consistent`Tory' voters can, therefore, also be
interpreted as the proportion of voters who never in any shape or form voted for Henry
Cruger, revealing the true popularity of the New York-born candidate. Interestingly,
only
15 per cent of shoemakerswho voted in all three elections never voted for Cruger, while
only 35 per cent who appearedin two elections did likewise. These figures are remarkable
figure given the fact that the majority of this sample appearedin 1781 when Cruger's
Bristol vote declined. The argument that tailors were more prone to vote Tory is
challenged by the fact that only 20 per cent of tailors appearing in all three elections never
202
in
for
did
31
two
for
those
Cruger,
voting
elections
not vote
per cent of
while only
voted
Cruger. However, those tailors who were committed to one party were far more evenly
While
21
between
the
to
the
two
shoemakers.
per cent of tailors
parties,
compared
split
20
34
Tories,
Whigs
in
to
the
to
the
three
and
per
cent
per
elections were committed
voting
Whigs
15
to
the
the
aligned
while
per cent
only
shoemakerswere consistently
cent of
loyal
Whig
Overall,
loyal
Tories.
the
then,
the
enjoyed
to
more
party
support among
stayed
the shoemakers,though the existenceof `split' voters among the tailors demonstratesthat
Cruger was also individually popular amongthis group. The pattern of voting among
Cruger
the
that
therefore
tailors
popularity
reflects
enjoyed
and
experiencedshoemakers
among artisans in general.
Conclusion
The support for anti-war Whig candidatesin 1774,and support for pro-war Tory
American
War
had
impact
in
that
the
a
serious
suggests
candidates subsequentelections,
on Bristol politics. This study has shown that the city's shoemakersand tailors were not
immune from thesewider trends. Indeed, differencesbetween the voting behaviour of inin
Bristol
itself
the
the
that
climate
shapedthe
political
reinforce
view
out-voters
and
initial
fraction
habits
However,
only
revealed
enquires
a
of the
such
of
residents.
voting
disposition
it
found
Thus,
the
that
showed
no
electorate
great
whole
while
was
story.
towards one party, both masterandjourneymen shoemakersclearly favoured the Whig
interest. By contrast,journeymen tailors veeredtowards the Whigs while their masters
due
discord
This
Tory
to
the
perhaps
partly
was
within the trade
supported
party.
generally
itself, thus, in 1784, a year without industrial disputes,both master and journeymen tailors
impact
had
Social
Tories.
demography
the
a
major
upon voting behaviour.
also
supported
Thus, the edifice of support for the Whig interest and Cruger relied almost wholly on the
Whig
to
the
the
this
award
area
always
only
candidate
populous easternparishes,and
was
the majority of its votes. The fact that the southernand non-artisan areasconsistently gave
Tory candidatesa majority also underminesthe idea that distinctive trade-basedvoting
interests existed. The only exception was the slight preference of southern-based
shoemakersfor the Whigs, perhapsdue to links with eastern-basedshoemakers.In all other
instancesshoemakersand tailors voted more or less in accordancewith the general results
for the area in which they resided. The fact that the proportions of experiencedvoters who
changedtheir party allegianceswere fairly high may be due to the relative mobility of
these groups. Voters may have beenmore susceptibleto influences in the areasto which
they moved. Although the voting patterns of experiencedvoters do reveal a certain level of
trade-related voting habits, this must be related to the fact that the majority of shoemakers
203
andtailorsresidedin the easternareaof the city. This factorexplainsthe consistentsupport

for Cruger among experiencedshoemakerand tailor-voters.
204
ENDNOTES
' P. T. Underdown, `Henry Cruger and Edmund Burke: Colleaguesand Rivals at the Bristol Election of
1774', William and Mary Quarterly, XV, 1958,p. 15.
2 E. J. Evans, Political Parties in Britain, 1783-1867(London, 1985), p. 3.
3 E. Baigent, `Bristol society in the later eighteenthcentury with special reference to the handling by
Oxford,
337.
(1985),
University
D.
Phil.
historical
fragmentary
thesis,
of
p.
sources',
computer of
4 M. Chase,Early Trade Unionism: Fraternity, Skill and the Politics of Labour (Aldershot, 2000), p. 48.
Chasewas speakingof the national picture rather than specifically of Bristol.
s J. A. Phillips, Electoral Behaviour in UnreformedEngland: Plumpers, Splitters, and Straights (Princeton,
New Jersey, 1982), p. 208.; F. 0' Gorman, Voters,Patrons, and Parties: The Unreformed Electoral System
206.
1989),
1734-1832
(Oxford,
England,
Hanoverian
p.
of
6 R. A. Leeson, Travelling Brothers: Thesix centuries road from craft fellowship to trade unionism (London,
1979), p. 89.
7 G. Rude, Wilkesand Liberty: A Social Study of 1763 to 1774 (Oxford, 1962); E. P. Thompson, The Making
Free-born
4,
`The
1991
Penguin
Class
(London,
1963;
English
Working
especially
ch.
reprint),
of the
Englishman' and ch. 5, `Planting the Liberty Tree'.; H. T. Dickinson, ThePolitics of the People in
Eighteenth-Century Britain (London, 1994); M. Chase,Early Trade Unionism, especially ch. 3, 'No
just
fraction
debate.
These
Man'
the
Rights
represent
a
of the
the
to
existing
which summarises
of
strangers
literature of artisansand radical politics.
8 SeeT. Harris, (ed.), ThePolitics of the Excluded, c. 1500-1850 (Cambridge, 2001).
9 M. Harrison, Crowds and History: Mass Phenomenain English Towns, 1790-1835 (Cambridge, 1988),p.
83.
10N. Rogers, 'Crowds and Political Festival in GeorgianEngland' in T. Harris (ed.), The Politics of the
Excluded, c. /500-1850 (Cambridge, 2001), p. 234.
11E. J. Hobsbawm and J. Scott, `Political Shoemakers',Past and Present, 89 (1980), pp. 94-95.
12J. Latimer, TheAnnals of Bristol in the Eighteenth Century (Bristol, 1893), pp. 414-415.
"A slight presumption has beentaken with Lord Clare's votes in 1774. Although nominally a Whig he
for
his
locally
loss
War,
number
and
small
of
votes,
the
easeof presentation
of
support
and
given
supported
his vote has been placed with the Tories.
14Henry Cruger (1739-1827) was a New York-born merchantwho came to live in Bristol in 1757,and after
Cruger
father-in-law
his
Bristol
in
1765,
Samuel
daughter
Peach
and
were seen
merchant,
a
of
marrying the
to be 'among the leadersof the radical movement' in Bristol. SeeL. Namier & J. Brooke, The History of
Parliament: The House of Commons,1754-1790, Volume3 (London, 1964), p. 280.
's Rude, Wilkes and Liberty, p. 195.While such views echoedthose of William Beckford's from the 1750s,
the achievementof Wilkes was to not only win over 'freeholders and freemen' but to 'harnessthe political
by
been
'untouched
had
thousands'
previously
parliamentary or municipal
and
of
many
who
support
energies
elections'. Seep. 196.
16Rude, Wilkes and Liberty, pp. 105-106. ; Dickinson, Politics of the People, p. 40.
" Rude, Wilkes and Liberty, p. 113.
SIbid., p. 113,149.
19J. Brewer, Party ideology and popular politics at the accessionof George III (Cambridge, 1976),p. 178.
20Rude, Wilkes and Liberty, p. 175; Dickinson, Politics of the People, p. 233,
Z' Namier & Brooke, History of Parliament, p. 280.
22J. Cannon,ParliamentaryReform,1640-1832(Cambridge,1972)p. 66.
23Namier & Brooke, History of Parliament, p. 280; Cannon,Parliamentary Reform, p. 66.

24Felix Farley's Bristol Journal (hereafterFFBJ), 8/10/1774.
25Rude, Wilkes and Liberty, p. 195.
26Ibid.
27Namier & Brooke, History of Parliament, p. 148,280.
28FFBJ 15/10/1774,22/10/1774.
29FFBJ 29/10/1774. There were many similar objections to Burke. In a letter attacking Burke's opposition to
short parliaments one writer asked; 'Is it not notorious, that the present long duration of parliament has taken
from you all constitutional check and controul over your members,except the very trifling one of a septennial
election?'. (FFBJ 15/10/1774)Another writer felt that Burke's support was gained from mistaken perception
of his true principles; 'Do you think that the friends of general liberty, who seemto join you with Mr. Cruger,
were acquaintedthat you were the enemy of short Parliaments?'. (FFBJ 22/10/1774).
30Underdown, 'Henry Cruger and Edmund Burke', p. 28.
3' Namier & Brooke, History Parliament, p. 282.
of
32Ibid.
" Underdown,'Henry CrugerandEdmundBurke', p. 14.;Evans,Political Parties, 5.
p.
34Underdown,'Henry CrugerandEdmundBurke', p. 31.
35Latimer, Annals Bristol, 409.

p.
of
205
36Ibid.
37Ibid.
38Underdown, 'Henry Cruger and Edmund Burke', p. 15.
39Ibid., p. 19.
4 Latimer, Annals of Bristol, p. 413.; Namier & Brooke, History of Parliament, pp. 115-116.
41O'Gorman, Voters,Patrons and Parties, p. 195.
42Latimer, Annals of Bristol, p. 415.
43J. E. Bradley, Popular Politics and the American Revolution in England: Petitions, the Crown,
and Public
Opinion (Macon, Georgia, 1986),p. 13.
asIbid., p. 65.
asFFBJ 15/10/1774.
47Ibid.
48Ibid., p. 439.
49Ibid., p. 434,444-445.
5Latimer, Annals of Bristol, pp. 432-433. In April 1778Burke's support in Parliament for a resolution that
allowed both Irish goods to be exported to the colonies and for colonial goods to be imported into Ireland
without passing through England first, causedoutrage in Bristol. Ironically the resolution had been proposed
by Lord Nugent, the former Lord Clare whom Burke had effectively replaced as a Bristol MP. In Bristol
Nugent's actions were àscribedto a diabolical spite' againstthe city for his rejection by its voters in 1774.
s` Latimer, Annals of Bristol, pp. 444-445.; Namier & Brooke, History of Parliament, p. 282,
53However O'Gorman is rather ambiguouson whether treating actually helped candidatesto win. On the one
hand he recognisedthat treating did not `representa genuinecorruption of the individual elector', while he
also recognisedthat it could also be used to exert 'influence over the electors'. Within the heightenedcontext
of the American War, it would seemevident that treating was used to achieve a specific result. See
O'Gorman, Voters,Patrons and Parties, p. 142.
55Ibid.
56Ibid., p. 446,448.
s' Ibid., p. 446.
58Ibid., pp. 446-447.
59FFBJ 10/2/1781.
60FFBJ 3/3/178 1.
62Ibid., pp. 451-452.
63Ibid., pp. 452-453
64Ibid., p. 456.
6$FFBJ 10/4/1784.
66FFBJ 10/4/1784.
67Latimer, Annals of Bristol, pp. 456-457.
69Ibid., p. 457.
69Latimer,Annalsof Bristol, pp. 536-537.;Dickinson,Politics of thePeople,p. 100.

70Baigent,'Bristol societyin the latereighteenthcentury',p. 327.
71Namier & Brooke, History Parliament, p. 302.

of
72Namier & Brooke, History of Parliament, p. 115.; FFBJ 8/10/1774.
73Namier & Brooke, History of Parliament, p. 115.
74Chapter 2 has already provided a division betweenin and out voters.
75O'Gorman, Voters,Patrons
and Parties, p. 192.
76Ibid. The Newcastle figure relates to 1774 and 1780,Dover to 1770, Leicester to 1766,
and York to 1774
and 1784.
77Baigent, 'Bristol society in the later
eighteenthcentury', p. 363.
78Phillips, Electoral Behaviour, 188.
p.
and Parties, pp. 192-193; SeeChapter Two for Bristol figures,
and Parties, p. 193.
a' Ibid., p. 153
B2Phillips, Electoral Behaviour,

pp. 78-79.
83The only blip in this

neatdivision lay with Clarein 1774,a Whig who supportedthe War, thoughhis vote
wasso marginalthat its inclusionamongthewar-supportingTory figureswill hardlydistorttheresults.
84The Bristol-resident
voters were divided into samplesof mastersand journeymen by using the following
method. Given that two trade directories, those of 1775 and 1785, closely correspond in time to the elections
of 1774 and 1784, it was possible to match namesfrom the voting lists with the trade directories. The 1775
trade directory was cross-matchedfirst with the 1774Poll Book, and then the 1781 Poll Book, while the
1785 directory was cross-matchedwith the 1784Poll Book and the 1781 Poll Book. Names
on voting lists
206
were deemedto be masterswhen their namesalso appearedin trade directories, practising their trade in the
sameparish, or a similar part of the city.
85SeeChapter 5 of this thesis.
86FFBJ 10/2/1781.
87FFBJ 10/2/1781;Latimer, Annals of Bristol, p. 447.
88FFBJ 20/1/1781.
89Sarah Farley's Btistol Journal (hereafterSFBJ),27/1/1781.
90SFBJ 27/1/1781.
91FFBJ 20/1/1781.
92FFBJ 10/4/1784.Two letters in this issueclaimed Cruger had trashedsymbols of British sovereignty.
93FFBJ 10/4/1784.
94E. Baigent, 'Economy and society in eighteenth-centuryEnglish towns: Bristol in the 1770s' in D.
Denecke and G. Shaw, (eds), Urban Historical Geography: RecentProgress in Britain and Germany
(Cambridge, 1988), pp. 118-119.
95N. Rogers, Whigsand Cities: Popular Politics in the Age of Walpole and Pitt (Oxford, 1989),p. 272.
96SFBJ 3/2/1781.
97Namier & Brooke, History of Parliament, p. 282.
98Underdown, 'Henry Cruger and Edmund Burke', pp. 23-25.
99Baigent, 'Bristol society in the later eighteenthcentury', p. 354.
10FFBJ 27/1/78 1.
101FFBJ 27/1/1781.
103N. Rogers, 'The Middling Sort in Eighteenth-CenturyPolitics' in J. Barry and C. Brooks (eds), The
Middling Sort of People: Culture, Society and Politics in England, 1550-1800 (London, 1994), p. 176.
106O'Gorman, Voters,Patrons and Parties, p. 374.; Phillips, Electoral Behaviour, p. 222.
107O'Gorman, Voters,Patrons and Parties, p. 374.; Phillips, Electoral Behaviour, pp. 222-6.
108The split betweenplumpers and double voters was calculated in the following way. If one takes the
number of voters in each parish and doublesthis number, one reachesthe maximun number of votes that
could possibly be cast if every voter took up their option of two votes. If one then deducts from this figure the
number of actual votes cast, the difference equalsthe number of plumpers, and so if you subtract the number
figure
for
double
from
this
gives
a
also
voters. To insure the calculation
of plumpers
number of voters overall
had been carried out correctly, merely multiply the double voters by two and add the number of plumpers,
and this will equateto the total number of votes that were cast.
10 Ibid., p. 376.
111Phillips, Electoral Behaviour, p. 20.
112Baigent, 'Bristol society in the later eighteenthcentury', pp. 329-330.
114Phillips, Electoral Behaviour, pp. 312-313.
115Ibid., p. 318.
116Phillips, Electoral Behaviour, pp. 313-314.; Baigent, 'Bristol in the 1770s, p. 112.
117O'Gorman, Voters,Patrons and Parties, pp. 194-195.
207
CONCLUSION
Men make their own history, but they do not make it just as they please;they do not make it under
circumstanceschosenby themselves,but under circumstancesdirectly encountered,given and transmitted
from the past. (Karl Marx, TheEighteenthBrumaire of Louis Bonaparte (1869,1984 edn.), p. 10.)
This quote, from Marx, although written in the late nineteenthcentury, nevertheless
encapsulatesthe experienceof Bristol artisansin the late eighteenth century. Indeed
Marx's hypothesis is reflected in the structureof this work; part one and part two examined
issuesof production, living conditions, and standardsof living, all aspectsof life over
introduced
journeymen
had
best
limited
Part
three
which
control.
at
aspectsof àgency',
and examined how journeymen sought to redressgrievancesthrough strike action and the
ways in which they engagedin the political processby forming an integral part of the
Bristol electorate.The structure of this work therefore reflects the reality of their lives,
given that the majority of the circumstancesfacing artisansin this period t ra not of their
choosing or making. By also focusing on the mannerin which artisans tried to changetheir
lives, during strikes, and by becoming involved in public affairs through elections, it
illustrates that Bristol's artisanswere far from purely victims of circumstance.
On a moredetailedlevel,how canthe socio-economic

experienceof Bristol's shoemakers
The evidencetendsto indicatethat the marketfor the goods
andtailors be summarised?
that thesetradesproducedwasgrowinginexorablyin the later eighteenthcentury.The
growth in domestic population, coupled with a thriving transatlantic export trade, meant
that the market for thesegoods, and for shoesin particular, was buoyant. This was more
marked in the shoemakingtrade, since shoes,unlike clothes, could not be made by people
at home. Furthermore, thesedevelopmentswere not curtailed by the two wars that
accounted for fifteen of the thirty years between 1770 and 1800, since demandsby the
military and navy for clothing and footwear meant that the temporary loss of export
markets was not fatal. These developmentsmeant that the ready-made trade in both shoes
and clothes, although especially footwear, becamethe predominant form of production in
terms of the numbers engagedin this work, while bespokeproduction continued to meet
the demandsof a more discerning and prosperousclientele.
There were important differences betweenthe two trades in terms of the
organisation of
production. While journeymen shoemakerswere divided between those who made male
and female footwear, journeymen tailors predominantly made clothes for customersof
both genders,despite the existenceof female-dominatedtrades such as
millinery in the
city. There was a key difference also in the location of work; while tailors predominantly
208
worked in workshops run by their employers,shoemakersworked largely at home and

were therefore out-workers. Furthermore,tailors were paid weekly wage rates, by contrast
with shoemakerswho were paid by the piece, with the result that their earningswere
impact
had
factors
linked
levels.
These
to
on the respectiveattitude
an
strictly
production
of both tradesto the use of female labour. While tailors strongly objected to the
it
1795,
in
1773
demonstrated
was common for the wives
and
employment of women, as
of married shoemakersto work alongsidetheir husbands.
This difference, whereby tailors were workshop-basedand received time-wages,while
had
have
impact
a
perceptible
may
on the
outworking
piece-workers,
shoemakerswere
during
fact
The
tailors
together
that
trade.
congregated
were
collective strength of each
work times undoubtedly allowed for feelings of common grievancesto accumulate.
Furthermore if time-wageswere not keeping pace with price movements, as seenin this
for
higher
in
the
the
of
need
there
wages.
eyesof workers
study,
was a clear correlation
However, in the shoemakingtrade the sameassumptionswere not so easily made.
Shoemakersoften worked at home, and although many single men sharedworkrooms, it
Pieceharder
for
this
tailors.
than
to
group
among
grievances
was
common
accumulate
in
hard
times of rising prices the
they
to
and
as
could,
rates also encouragedmen work as
first impulse of journeymen shoemakersappearsto have been to increaseproduction
levels. There is evidenceto suggestthat Bristol's shoemakersonly struck when despite
living
different
These
to
they
secure
a
wage.
able
not
still were
working a seven-dayweek
five
full-blown
Bristol's
tailors
undertook
strikes in this
circumstancesmay explain why
in
The
in
just
the
two.
method
of
gaining
employment
period, while shoemakersengaged
tailoring trade, through the `houseof call', further strengthenedinstancesin which
had
Tailors
be
to register at the `houseof
upon.
and
acted
collective grievancescould
aired
call' to obtain work, thereby making men more aware of their collective strength;
became
in
fact
`houses
the organising centresof
the
that
call'
of
something reflected
disputes for journeymen. Shoemakers,by contrast, shoemakershad to call at individual
shops in person. Therefore, both the method of gaining employment and the actual location
of work, combined with different methods of wage-payment,meant that there were many
in
for
the
possibilities
more
growth of collective grievances the tailoring trade than in
shoemaking.
Despite the greater capacity for collective grievancesto accumulate, the wages of Bristol's
tailors only rose once between 1773 and 1796, suggestingthat strike action was frequently
unsuccessful.Two tactics used by both tailors and shoemakersalso suggestthat they were
209
frequently on the `defensive'. Firstly, tailors, in particular, never used a favourite tactic of
their London counterparts;going on the tramp in order to starve mastersof their labour
supply. This was not due to any unwillingness to move. Considerablenumbers of tailors
(and shoemakers),having servedtheir apprenticeshipsin Bristol and obtained the freeman
vote for the city, left Bristol for ordinary work purposes.Rather,journeymen were more
concernedwith keeping labour from entering the city. Engineering an exodus to starve the
labour supply was only valid if the masterscould not find replacementlabour. In Bristol
masterswere generally able to find labour to replace strikers, further highlighting the
collective weaknessand `defensive' quality of many of thesestrikes. Secondly, the manner
in which appealsto the `public' were made in the newspapersalso suggestscollective
weakness.The moral invective used in theseinsertions concerning food prices suggests
that Bristol shoemakersand tailors did not have the collective muscle to fight their
employers without the assistanceof wider `public' support.
Collective weaknesswas also due to the density of the two trades within Bristol. Neither
shoemakersnor tailors constituted a significant section of Bristol society, due to the mixed
nature of the city's economy. However, the distribution of journeymen from thesetrades
meant that it was increasingly likely for artisansto dominate certain parts of the city, and
especially the easternparishes.This undoubtedly aided the organisation and cohesionof
journeymen, especially in the tailoring trade wherejourneymen-controlled `housesof call'
came increasingly to be situated in this easternsector. The period therefore witnessed
growing distinctions in the social composition of Bristol's parishes.Eastern and southern
parts of Bristol were, by this juncture, increasingly populated by artisans and labourers.
This may help to explain the support awardedto the shoemakersby other journeymen in
1792. The growing social homogeneity of theseareasmay also explain the continued
support in parliamentary elections for the trade-friendly candidature of Henry Cruger, by
contrast with support in the prosperouscentral and western areasof Bristol for proGovernment candidates.Artisans, therefore, especially in the easternsector, were
beginning to indicate signs of a growing `class' identity, both in terms their
of
strike action
and in terms of their voting habits at parliamentary elections.
210
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Manuscript sources
Public Record Office, Kew: Oxford Circuit Crown Minute Books
ASSI 2/21 1767 Summer- 1771Lent.
2/22 1771 Summer- 1774 Summer.
2/23 1775 Lent - 1779 Lent.
2/24 1779 Summer- 1784Lent.
2/25 1784 Summer- 1791Lent.
2/26 1791 Summer- 1799 Lent.
2/27 1799 Summer- 1805 Lent.
ASSI 5/96/4 GloucestershireLent Assizes,Indictments.
Western Circuit Gaol Books
ASSI 23/7 1754-1773.
23/8 1774-1798.
23/9 1799-1812.
Bristol Record Office: Bristol Corporation Letter Book 1792 (05158).
Minutes of Common Council 1788-1792(04266(6)).
Bristol Quarter SessionsRecords, 1769-1800.
Town Clerk Letter Box 1792.
Bristol ReferenceLibrary: Bristol Rates Index: Parishesand Streetstherein, 1800-1823,(BL 14/15).
University of Bristol Library: House of CommonsJournals, 20 (1722-1727).
Journals of the House of Lords, 37 (1786).
Matthew Brickdale; TheParliamentaryDiary of MatthewBrickdale.

Printed Sources
Bristol Gaol Delivery Fiats 1741-1799, ed. G. Lamoine, Bristol Record Society, Vol.
XL, (Bristol, 1989).
A Bristol Miscellany, ed. P. McGrath, Bristol Record Society, Vol. xxxvii, (Bristol,
1985).
Trade of Bristol in the Eighteenth Century, cd. W. E. Minchinton, Bristol Record
Society, Vol. xx, (Bristol, 1957).
Early English Trade Unions, cd. A. Aspinall (London, 1949).
Select Documents Illustrating the History of Trade Unionism: The Tailoring Trade,
F.
ed. W. Galton (London, 1896).
211
National index of parish registers: a guide to Anglican, Roman Catholic and

Noncomformist registers before 1837: Society of Genealogists(London, 1966).
A Survey of Parish Boundary Markers and Stonesfor Eleven of the Ancient Bristol
Parishes (Temple Local History Group, Bristol, 1994).
English Economic History: SelectDocuments,eds.A. E. Bland, P. A. Brown, and R.
H. Tawney (1915).
Newspapers and periodicals (eighteenth century)

Annual Register
Bath Chronicle
Bath Herald
Bath Journal
Bath Register and WeeklyAdvertiser
Bonner and Middleton's Bristol Journal
Bristol Gazette
Bristol Mercury
Felix Farley's Bristol Journal
Gentleman's Magazine
GloucesterJournal
Newcastle Advertiser
Sarah Farley's Bristol Journal
Contemporary pamphlets and books
Anon., Book of Trades,or Library of the Useful Arts: Part 2 (London, 1806).
Anon., Bristol Poll Book (Bristol, 1775).
Anon., Crispin Anecdotes: Comprising Interesting Notices of Shoemakerswho have
beenDistinguishedfor Genius,Enterprise or Eccentricity (Sheffield, 1827)
Anon., Crispin: TheDelightful, Princely and Entertaining History of the Gentle Craft
(London, 1750)
Anon., TheHonor of the Taylors, or the History of Sir John Hawk-wood.
Anderson, A., Historical and chronological deduction of the origins of commerce
(1764).
Brown, John,Sixty Years'Gleaningsfrom Life's Harvest:A GenuineAutobiography

(Cambridge1858).
Campbell,R., TheLondonTradesman(London,1747;1969Reprint).
Davies, D., The Case of Labourers in Husbandry Statedand Considered: with an
Appendix containing a collection of accountsshowing the earnings and expenses
of labouring families in different parts of the kingdom (Bath, 1795; 1977 reprint).
Defoe, D., The CompleteEnglish Tradesman(1726; 1987 Reprint).
Defoe, D., A Plan of the English Commerce(1728, reprinted Oxford, 1928).
Devlin, JamesDacres, The Guide to Trade: The Shoemaker(London, 1840).
Eden, F. M., The State of the Poor: or An History of the Labouring Classesin
England, from the Conquestto the Present Period (London, 1797; 1994 reprint).
Gardiner, Robert, The boot and shoe-maker's assistant,by one who has worked on the
seat and at the cutting-board (London, 1853).
Herbert, G., Shoemaker's Window: Recollections of Banbury in Oxfordshire before
the Railway Age (London, 1971; first published in 1948 from a manuscript
212
written in 1898).
Johnson, Samuel,A Dictionary of the English Language: Two Volumes(London,
1755; 1983 reprint).
Lackington, James,Memoirs of the First Forty-Five Yearsof the Life of James
Lackington, Thepresent Bookseller in Chiswell-street,Moorfelds, London;
Written by Himself (London, 1792).
Mathews, J., The Bristol guide 1795 (Bristol, 1795).
Mathews's Bristol guide and directory 1793-4 (Bristol, 1794).
Menetra, J. L., Journal of My Life (1764; published with an introduction and
commentary by D. Roche, New York, 1986).
Mortimer, T., A General Commercial Dictionary (London, 1819).
New, J., An Account of the Housesand Inhabitants of the Parish of St Philip and
Jacob in the City of Bristol, 1781 (Bristol, 1781).
Pine, W., Bristol Poll Book (Bristol 1775).
Postlethwayt, M., Universal Dictionary of Trade and Commerce(1751).
Ramazzini, Bernardino, De Morbis Artifieum: Diseasesof Workers,the Latin text of
1713 revised with translation and notes by Wilmer Cave Wright (University of
Chicago Press,Illinois, 1940).
Rees, J. F., TheArt and Mystery of a Cordwainer; or An Essay on the Principles and
Practice of Boot and Shoe-Making(London, 1813).
Rolt, R., A New Dictionary of Trade and Commerce:by Mr Rolt with the assistance
of several eminent merchants(London 1761).
Smith, A., The Wealth of Nations Books I-III (1776; 1970edn.).
Sketchley's Bristol Directory 1775 (Bristol 1775,Kingsmead Reprints Bath
1971).
Southey, R., Lettersfrom England (London, 1807; 1951edition edited with
introduction by J. Simmons).
Novels
Austen, J., Pride and Prejudice (1813; Wordsworth, 1999).
Defoe, D. Moll Flanders (1722; Penguin, 1994).
Gaskell, E., North and South (1854; Penguin, 1994).
SECONDARY SOURCES
Books
Alexander, D., Retailing in England during the Industrial Revolution (London, 1970).
Aspinall, A., Politics and the Press, c. 1780-1850(London, 1949).
Ashton, 0., Fyson, R., and Roberts, S., (eds), TheDuty of Discontent: Essaysfor
Dorothy Thompson(London, 1995).
Ashton, T. S., An Economic History of England: The 18'hCentury (London, 1955).
Economic Fluctuations in England, 1700-1800 (Oxford, 1959)
Baker, J., Guide to Bristol Poll Books and Electoral Registers, (Bristol, 1993).
Barry, J., and Brooks, C., (eds), TheMiddling Sort of People, Culture, Society and
Politics in England1550-1800(London,1994).
Belchem, J., Industrialization and the Working Class: The English Experience 1750-
213
1900 (Aldershot, 1990).

Belchem, J., and Kirk, N., (eds),Languagesof Labour (Aldershot, 1997).
Berg, M., TheAge of Manufactures 1700-1820:Industry, innovation and work in
Britain (London, 1994).
Berg, M., Hudson, P., and Sonenscher,M., (eds),Manufacture in town and country
before thefactory (Cambridge, 1983).
Berg, M., (ed.), Markets and Manufacture in Early Industrial Europe (London 1991).
Berg, M., and Clifford, H., (eds), Consumersand luxury: ConsumerCulture in
Europe, 1650-1850 (Manchester, 1999).
Berlanstein, L. R., (ed.), The Industrial Revolution and Work in Nineteenth-Century
Europe (London, 1992).
Beveridge, Lord, Prices and Wagesin England,from the Twelfth to the Nineteenth
Century: Volume 1, Price Tables: Mercantile Era (London, 1939; 1965 edition).
Black, J., and Gregory, J., (eds), Culture, Politics and Societyin Britain 1660-1800
(Manchester, 1991).
Black, J., The English Press in the Eighteenth Century (London, 1987).
The English Press, 1621-1861(Stroud, Gloucs., 2001).
Bohstedt, J., Riots and CommunityPolitics in England and Wales 1790-1810
(Cambridge, Mass., 1983).
Bradley, J. E., Popular Politics and the American Revolution in England: Petitions,
the Crown, and Public Opinion (Macon, Georgia, 1986).
Braudel, F., Capitalism and Material Life, 1400-1800 (Glasgow, 1973).
Brentano, L., On Gilds and Trade Unions (London, 1870).
Brewer, J., and Styles, J., (eds),An ungovernablepeople: the English and their law in
the seventeenthand eighteenthcenturies (London, 1980).
Brewer, J., Party Ideology and Popular Politics at the Accessionof George 111
(Cambridge, 1976).
Brewer, J., and Porter, It, (eds), Consumptionand the World of Goods (London,
1993).
Briggs, A., and Saville, J., (eds), Essaysin Labour History (London, 1960,1967 edn).
Brown, A. F. J., Essexat Work 1700-1815(Chelmsford, 1969).
Brown, K. D., (ed.), The English Labour Movement 1700-1951 (Dublin, 1982).
Buck, A., Dress in Eighteenth-Century England (London, 1979).
Burnett, J., A History of the Cost ofLiving (London, 1969; 1993 reprint).
Calhoun, C., The Question of Class Struggle (Oxford, 1982).
Calhoun,C., (ed.), Habermasand thePublic Sphere(Cambridge,Mass.,1992).

Cannon,J., ParliamentaryReform,1640-1832(Cambridge,1972).
Chambers, J. D., Population, Economy, and Society in Pre-Industrial England
(London, 1972).
Charlesworth, A., (ed.), An Atlas of Industrial Protest in Britain 17.50-1990
(London, 1996).
Chartier, It, The Cultural Origins of the French Revolution (London, 1991).
Chase, M., Early trade unionism: Fraternity, Skill, and the Politics of Labour
(Aldershot, 2000).
Christie, I. R., Myth and Reality in Late-Eighteenth-CenturyBritish Politics and
Other Papers (London, 1970).
Wars and Revolutions Britain 1760-1815 (London, 1982).
Stressand Stability in Late Eighteenth-Century Britain: Reflections on
the British avoidance of revolution (Oxford, 1984).
Clark, A., The Strugglefor the breeches:Gender and the Making of the British
214
Working Class (London, 1995).

Clark, Alice, The Working Life of Womenin the SeventeenthCentury (London, 1982).
Clark, P., and Souden,D., Migration and Societyin Early Modern England (London,
1987).
Cole, G. D. H., and Filson, A. W., British Working ClassMovements,Select
Documents 1789-1875 (London, 1951).
Cole, G. D. H., Short History of the British Working ClassMovement (London, 1927,
revised 1948).
Cole, G. D. H., and Postgate,R., The CommonPeople 1746-1946(London, 1966).
Colley, L., Britons: Forging the Nation, 1707-1837,(Yale, 1992).
Cook, C., and Stevenson,J., TheLongman handbookof modern British history, 1714
1988).
2d
(New
York,
1983;
edn.,
-1987
Corfield, P. J., and Keene, D., (eds), Work in Towns,850-1850 (Leicester, 1990).
Corfield, P., (ed.), Language, History and Class (Oxford, 1991).
Crafts, N., British Economic Growth During the Industrial Revolution (Oxford,
1985).
Crafts, N. F. R., The "Quality of Life ": Lessonsfor andfrom the British Industrial
Revolution, Working Papersin Economic History (London, 1995).
Cranfield, G. A., TheDevelopmentof the Provincial Newspaper, 1700-1760 (Oxford,
1962).
Crossick, G., (ed.), TheArtisan and the European Town, 1500-1900 (Aldershot,
1997)
Damton, R., The Great Cat Massacre and other episodesin French cultural history
(New York, 1985).
Daunton, M. J., Progress and Poverty: An Economic and Social History of Britain,
1700-1850 (Oxford, 1995).
Deane, P., and Cole, W. A., British Economic Growth 1688-1959 (Cambridge, 1962;
1993 reprint).
Delpierre, M., Dress in France in the Eighteenth Century (Paris, 1996; trans. by C.
Beamish, Yale, 1997).
Dickinson, H. T., The Politics of the People in Eighteenth-Century Britain (London,
1994).
Dobbs, B., TheLast Shall Be First: The Colourful Story of John Cobb, the St James's
Bootmaker (London, 1972).
Dobson, C. R., Masters and Journeymen:A prehistory of industrial relations 17171800 (London, 1980).
Dresser,M., andOllerenshaw,P., (eds),TheMakingof ModernBristol (Tiverton,

1996).
Duplessis, R., Transitions to Capitalism in Early Modern Europe (Cambridge,
1997).
Emsley, C., British society and the French Wars 1793-1815,(London, 1979).
Crime and Society in England, 1750-1900 (London, 1987).
Epstein, J. A., Radical Expression: Political Language,Ritual, and Symbol in
England 1790-1850 (Oxford, 1994).
Evans, E., Political Parties in Britain 1783-1867 (London, 1985).
Falkus, M., Britain Transformed: An Economic and Social History 1700-1914
(Oxford, 1987).
Farr, J. R., Artisans in Europe: 1300-1914 (Cambridge, 2000).
Fine, B., and Leopold, E., The World of Consumption(London, 1993).
Fissell, M. E., Patients, Power and the Poor in Eighteenth-Century Bristol
215
(Cambridge, 1991).
Fletcher, A., and Stevenson,J., (eds), Order & Disorder in Early Modern England
(London, 1985).
Floud, R., and McClorkey, D., An Economic History of Britain since 1700
(Cambridge, 1981).
Geertz, C., The Interpretation of Cultures: SelectedEssays(New York, 1973; 1993
edn.).
George, M. D., London Life in the Eighteenth Century (London, 1925).
Gilboy, E. W., Wagesin Eighteenth-CenturyEngland (Cambridge, Mass., 1934).
Glen, R., Urban Workersin the Early Industrial Revolution (London, 1983).
Green, D. R., From Artisans to Paupers: Economic Changeand Poverty in London
1790-1870 (Aldershot, 1995).
Habermas, J., The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere:An inquiry into a
by
T.
Burger,
1989;
Mass.,
trans.
(Cambridge,
bourgeois
society
category of
in
German
1962).
in
originally published
Hammond, J. L., and B., The Town Labourer 1760-1832(London, 1917; 1978 edn.).
The Skilled Labourer, 1760-1832(London, 1919; 1995edn.).
Harris, M., and Lee, A., (eds), ThePress in English Societyfrom the Seventeenthto
Nineteenth Centuries (London, 1986).
Harris, T., (ed.), Popular Culturein England1700-1850(London,1995).
The Politics of the Excluded, c. 1500-1850 (Cambridge, 2001).

Harrison, M., Crowds and History: Mass Phenomenain English Towns 1790-1835
(Cambridge, 1988).
Hay, D., Thompson, E. P., and Linebaugh, P., (eds),Albion's Fatal Tree: Crime and
Society in Eighteenth Century England (London, 1975).
Hay, D., and Snyder, F., (eds),Law, Labour and Crime in Historical Perspective
(London, 1987).
Hay, D., and Rogers,N., Eighteenth Century English Society: Shuttlers and Swords
(Oxford, 1997).
Hill, B., Eighteenth century women: an anthology (London, 1984).
Women,Work and SexualPolitics in Eighteenth-CenturyEngland (Oxford,
1989; 1994 edn.).
Hitchcock, T., King, P., and Sharpe,P., (eds), Worlds of the Poor (London, 1996).
Hobsbawm, E. J., Primitive Rebels (London, 1959).
Labouring Men (London, 1964).
Worldsof Labour:further studiesin the history of labour (London,

1984).
Honeyman, K., Women,Gender and Industrialisation, 1700-1870 (London, 2000).
Hoppit, J., Risk andfailure in English business1700-1800(Cambridge, 1987).
Hudson, P., Regions and Industries: A Perspectiveon Industrial Revolution in Britain
(Cambridge, 1989).
History by Numbers: An introduction to quantitative approaches
(London, 2000).
France(Oxford, 1974).
Hufton, 0., ThePoor of Eighteenth-Century
Jaffe, J. A., Striking a Bargain: Work and Industrial Relations in England,

1815-65 (Manchester,2000).
Joyce, P., Visions of the People: Industrial England and the Question of Class, 18481914 (Cambridge, 1991).
(ed.), The Historical Meanings of Work (Cambridge, 1987).
(ed.), Class (Oxford, 1995).
216
Kirk, N., Labour and Society in Britain and the USA, Volume1: Capitalism, Custom
and Protest, 1780-1850 (Aldershot, 1994).
Latimer, J., TheAnnals of Bristol in the Eighteenth Century, Volume2 (Bristol, 1893,
1970reprint).
Laybourn, K., A History of British Trade Unionism (Stroud, 1992).
Leeson, R. A., Travelling Brothers: Thesix centuries' road from craft fellowship to
trade unionism (London, 1979).
Lemire, B., Fashion's Favourite: The Cotton Trade and the Consumerin Britain,
1660-1800 (Oxford, 1991).
Dress, culture and commerce: TheEnglish clothing trade before the
factory, 1660-1800 (London, 1997).
Lindsay, J., 1764: The Hurlyburly of Daily Life Exemplified in One Year of the
Eighteenth Century (London, 1959).
Lis, C., Social change and the labouring poor: Antwerp, 1770-1860(London, 1986).
Lis, C., and Soly, H., Poverty and Capitalism in Pre-Industrial Europe (Hassocks,
1979).
Little, B. D. G., The City and County of Bristol: a Study in Atlantic Civilisation
(Bristol, 1954).
Lucassen, J., Migrant labour in Europe 1600-1900: TheDrift to the North Sea
(London, 1987).
McCord, N., Strikes(Oxford, 1980).

McGrath, P., (ed.), Bristol in the 18`hCentury (Newton Abbot, 1972).
McKendrick, N., Brewer, J., and Plumb, J. H., TheBirth of a Consumer
Society: The Commercialization of Eighteenth-CenturyEngland (London, 1982).
McWilliam, R., Popular Politics in Nineteenth-CenturyEngland (London, 1998).
Malcolmson, R. W., Life and Labour in England in England 1700-1780 (London,
1981).
Marshall, D., Industrial England 1776-1851(London, 1973).
Marshall, P., Bristol and the American War of Independence(Bristol, 1977).
Marx, K., The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte (London, 1984)..
Marx, K., and Engels, F., On the trade unions, edited by Kenneth Lapides (New York,
1987).
Mathias, P., The First Industrial Nation (Cambridge, 1969).
Mauss, M., The Gift: The Form and Reasonfor Exchangein Archaic Societies, trans.
W. D. Halls (1950; New York, 1990).
Menger, A., TheRight to the WholeProduceof Labour(London,1899;1970reprint).

Minchinton, W. E., ThePort of Bristol in the eighteenthcentury(Bristol, 1962).
Mingay, G. E., (ed.), TheAgrarian History of Englandand Wales:VolumeVI, 17501850(Cambridge,1989).
Mitchell, B., and Deane,P., Abstract of British Historical Statistics (17) (Cambridge,
1971).
Mitchell, B., British Historical Statistics(Cambridge,1988).

Money, J., Experience and Identity: Birmingham and the WestMidlands, 1760-1800
(Manchester, 1977).
Morgan, K., Bristol and the Atlantic Trade in the Eighteenth Century (Cambridge,
1993).
Morris, R. J., Class and class consciousnessin the Industrial Revolution 1780-1850
(London, 1979).
Mui, Hoh-Cheung, and Mui, Lorna H., Shopsand shopkeepingin eighteenth-century
England (London, 1989).
217
Muldrew, C., The Economy of Obligation: The Culture of Credit and Social Relations
in Early Modern England (London, 1998).
Namier, L., The Structure of Politics at the Accessionof George3"d(London, 1957).
Namier, L., and Brooke, J., TheHistory of Parliament: TheHouse of Commons,
1754-1790, Volume3 (London, 1964).
Nash, G. B., The Urban Crucible: Social Change,Political Consciousnessand the
Origins of the American Revolution (Cambridge,Mass., 1979).
Neale, A. V., Medical Progress in Bristol: TheLong Fox Memorial Lecture, 1963
(Bristol, 1964).
Neale, R. S., Bath: A Social History 1680-1850,or a Valley of Pleasure Yet a Sink of
Iniquity (London, 1981).
Norton, J. E., Guide to the National and Provincial Directories of England and
Wales,excluding London, published before 1856 (London, 1950).
O'Gorman, F., Voters,Patrons and Parties: The UnreformedElectoral Systemof
Hanoverian England 1734-1832(Oxford, 1989).
Orth, J. V., Combination and conspiracy: a legal history of trade unionism, 17211906 (Oxford, 1991).
Page, W., (ed.), The Victoria History of the County of Gloucester: Volume Two
(London, 1907).
Pelling, H., A History of British Trade Unionism (Middlesex, 1963,1973 edition).
Petersen, C., Bread and the British Economy,cl 770-1870(Aldershot, 1995).
Phillips, J. A., Electoral Behaviour in UnreformedEngland: Plumpers, Splitters, and
Straights (Princeton, New Jersey, 1982).
Pinchbeck, I., WomenWorkersand the Industrial Revolution 1750-1850 (London,
1930; 1969 edn.).
Plumb, J.H., England in the Eighteenth Century (London, 1950).
Press, J., The Merchant Seamenof Bristol, 1747-1789(Bristol, 1995).
Price, R., Labour in British Society (London, 1986).
Prothero, I., Artisans and Politics in Early Nineteenth-CenturyLondon: John Gast
and his Times (Folkestone, 1979).
Quinault, R., and Stevenson,J., (eds),Popular Protest and Public Order: 1790-1820
(London, 1974).
Ralph, E., Governmentof Bristol, 1373-1973 (Bristol, 1974).
Guide to the Bristol Archives Office (Bristol 1971).
The Streetsof Bristol (Bristol, 1981).
Randall, A., and Charlesworth, A., (eds),Markets, market culture and Popular
Protest in Eighteenth Century Britain and Ireland (Liverpool, 1996).
Moral Economy and Popular Protest: Crowds, Conflict and Authority
(Basingstoke, 2000).
Randall, A., Before the Luddites (Cambridge, 1991).
Reddy, W., The Rise of Market Culture: The textile trade and French society, 17501900 (Cambridge, 1984).
Rendall, J., Womenin an Industrializing Society: England 1750-1880 (Oxford, 1990).
Roche, D., The Culture of Clothing: Dress and Fashion in the Anden Regime,
(Cambridge, 1994).
History of Everyday things: the birth of consumption in France, 1600
(Cambridge,
2000).
-1800
Rodger, R., Housing in Urban Britain, 1780-1914: Class, Capitalism and
Construction (London, 1989).
Rogers, N., Whigs and Cities, Popular Politics in the Age of Walpole and Pitt
218
(Oxford, 1989).
Rude,G., WilkesandLiberty (Oxford, 1962).
Rule, J., TheExperience of Labour in Eighteenth-CenturyIndustry (London, 1981).

TheLabouring Classesin Early Industrial England 1750-1850 (London,
1986).
(ed.), British Trade Unionism 1750-1850(London, 1988).
Salaman,R. N., TheHistory and Social Influence of the Potato (Cambridge, 1949;
1985 reprint).
Sanderson,E. C., Womenand Work in Eighteenth-CenturyEdinburgh (London,
1996).
Schwarz, L. D., London in the Age of Industrialisation: Entrepreneurs, Labour Force
1992).
(Cambridge,
Living
1700-1850
Conditions,
and
Scott, J. W., Gender and the Politics of History (New York, 1988).
Sewell, W. H., Work and Revolution in France: Thelanguage of labor from the old
(Cambridge,
1980).
1848
to
regime
Shammas,C., ThePre-Industrial Consumerin England and America (Oxford, 1990).
Sharpe, P., Adapting to Capitalism: Working Womenin the English Economy 17001850 (London, 1996).
Shelton, W. J., English Hunger and Industrial Disorders: A study of social conflict
during thefirst decadeof GeorgeIII's Reign (London, 1973).
Siltanen, J., and Stanworth, M., (eds.), Womenand the Public Sphere: A critique of
sociology and politics (London, 1984).
Sommerville, C. John, TheNews Revolution in England (Oxford, 1996).
Sonenscher,M., Work and Wages: Natural Law, Politics, and the EighteenthCentury French Trades (Cambridge, 1989).
StedmanJones,G., Languagesof Class (Cambridge, 1983).
Steinberg, M., Fighting Words: Working-ClassFormation, Collective Action, and
Discourse in Early Nineteenth-CenturyEngland (Ithaca, 1999).
Steinfeld, R., TheInvention of Free Labor. TheEmploymentRelations in English and
American Law and Culture, 1350-1870(Chapel Hill, 1991).
Stevenson,J., Popular Disturbances in England 1700-1870 (London, 1979).
Stoddard, S., Bristol before the Camera: The City in 1820-30, Watercolours and
Drawings from the Braikenridge Collection (Bristol, 2001).
Swann, J., Shoes(London, 1982).
Shoemaking(PrincesRisborough,Bucks.,1986;1997Reprint).
Sweet, R., The English Town, 1680-1840: Government,Society and Culture (London,
1999).
Taylor, A. J., (ed.), The Standard of Living in Britain in the Industrial Revolution
(London, 1975).
Thompson, E.P., TheMaking of the English Working Class (London, 1963; 1991edn),
Customsin Common(London, 1991).
Tilly, C., Popular Contention in Great Britain 1758-1834 (Cambridge, Mass,, 1995).
Tilly, L. A., and Scott, J. W., Women,Work and the Family (New York, 1978).
Vincent, D., Literacy and Popular Culture, 1750-1914 (Cambridge, 1989).
Wallas, G., TheLife of Francis Place 1771-1854(London, 1898).
Weatherill, L., ConsumerBehaviour and Material Culture in Britain, 1660-1760
(London, 1988).
Webb, S., and B., TheHistory of Trade Unionism 1666-1920 (London, 1894,1920
Edition).
Wells, R. A. E., Insurrection: TheBritish Experience, 1795-1803 (Gloucester, 1986).
219
Williams, G. A., Artisans and Sans-Culottes:Popular Movementsin France and

Britain during the French Revolution (London, 1968; 2"d Edition, 1989).
Winks, W. E., Lives of Illustrious Shoemakers(London 1883).
Wood, E. M., and Foster, J. B., (eds),In Defenceof History: Marxism and the
PostmodernAgenda (New York, 1997).
Wright, A. R., British calendar customsEngland, Vol III: Fixed Festivals, JuneDecember (London, 1940).
Articles
Baigent, E., Èconomy and Society in eighteenth-centuryEnglish towns: Bristol in the
1770s' in Denecke,D., and Shaw, G., (eds), Urban Historical Geography: Recent
Progress in Britain and Germany (Cambridge, 1988),pp. 109-124.
ÀssessedTaxes as Sourcesfor the study of urban wealth: Bristol in the
later eighteenth century', Urban History Yearbook(Leicester, 1988), pp. 31-48.
Barry, J., 'The pressand the politics of culture in Bristol, 1660-1775' in Black, J., and
Gregory, J., (eds), Culture, Politics and Society in Britain, 1660-1800
(Manchester, 1991),pp. 49-8 1.
'Bristol Pride: Civic Identity in Bristol, c. 1640-1775' in Dresser, M., and
Ollerenshaw, P., (eds), TheMaking of Modern Bristol (Bristol, 1996), pp. 25-47.
Behagg, C., `Custom, Class and Change:the trade societiesof Birmingham', Social
History, 3 (1979), pp. 455-480.
Blewett, M. H., `Work, Gender and the Artisan Tradition in New England
Shoemaking, 1780-1860', Journal of Social History, 27 (1983/84), pp. 221-248.
Briggs, A., `The Languageof "Class" in Early Nineteenth-Century England', in
Briggs, A., and Saville, J., (eds),Essaysin Labour History (London, 1960,
Revised Edition 1967), pp. 43-73.
Charlesworth,A., andRandall,A., `Comment:Morals,marketsandthe English

(1987),
200-213.
114,
Present,
in
Past
1766',
pp.
and
crowd
`From the moral economy of Devon to the political economy of

Manchester 1790-1812', Social History, 18, (1993), pp. 205-217.
Clark, A., `ContestedSpace:The Public and Private Spheresin Nineteenth-Century
Britain', Journal of British Studies35 (1996), pp. 269-276.
Clarkson,L. A., `WageLabour, 1500-1800'in Brown,K. D., (cd.), TheEnglish

Labour Movement1700-1951(Dublin, 1982),pp. 1-27.
Corfield, P. J., "'Giving directions to the town": the early town directories', Urban
History Yearbook, 1984,pp. 22-35.
`Class by Name and Number in Eighteenth Century Britain', History, 72,
(1987), pp. 38-61.
Dekker, R., `Labour conflicts and working-class culture in early modern Holland',
International Review of Social History, 35, (1990), pp. 377-420.
Ehmer, J., `Worlds of mobility: migration patternsof Viennese artisans in the
eighteenth century' in Crossick, G., (ed.), TheArtisan and the European Town,
1500-1900 (Aldershot, 1997), pp. 172-199.
Eisenberg, C., Àrtisans' Socialization at Work: Workshop Life in Early Nineteenth.
Century England and Germany', Journal of Social History 24 (1991), pp. 507-520.
Eley, G., 'Edward Thompson, Social History and Political Culture: The Making of a
Working-Class Public, 1780-1850' in Kaye, H. J., and McClelland, K., (eds),
E. P. Thompson: Critical Perspectives(Oxford, 1990), pp. 12-49.
220
Farr, J. R., `Culturalanalysisandearlymodernartisans'in Crossick,G., (ed.), The

Artisan and theEuropeanTown,1500-1900(Aldershot,1997),pp. 56-74.
Feather, J., `The Power of Print: Word and Image in Eighteenth-Century England' in
Black, J., (ed.), Culture and Societyin Britain, 1660-1800(Manchester, 1997),
pp. 51-68.
Feinstein, C. H., `PessimismPerpetuated:Real Wagesand the Standardof Living in
Britain during and after the Industrial Revolution', TheJournal of Economic
History, 3,58,1998, pp. 625-658.
Fine, B., and Leopold, E., `Consumerismand the industrial revolution', Social
History, xv, 2, (1990), pp. 151-179.
Fissell, M. E., `The "sick and drooping poor" in eighteenth-centuryBristol and its
35-58.
(1989),
2,
Medicine,
Social
History
pp.
of
region',
Flinn, M. W., `Trends in Real Wages, 1750-1850',Economic History Review, 27,
1974, pp. 395-413.
Fowler, C., `Changesin Provincial Retail Practiceduring the Eighteenth Century,
Business
History,
Vol.
England',
Central-Southern
Reference
Particular
to
with
40,4, Oct. 1998,pp. 37-54.
Garrioch, D., and Sonenscher,M., `Compagnonnages,Confraternities and
European
History
Quarterly,
in
Century
Paris',
18th
Journeymen
associationsof
16, (1986), pp. 25-45.
Granger, C. W. J., and Elliott, C. M., À FreshLook at Wheat Prices and Markets in
the Eighteenth Century', Economic History Review, 20,1967, pp. 257-265.
Gray, R., `The deconstructingof the English working class', Social History, 11,
(1986), pp. 363-373.
Green, E. M., `The taxonomy of occupationsin late eighteenth-centuryWestminster'
in Corfield, P. J., and Keene, D., (eds), Work in Towns,850-1850 (Leicester,
1990), pp. 164-181.
Harte, N. B., (ed.), `Fabrics and fashion: Studiesin the economic and social history of
Dress', Textile History Supplement,Vol. 22, No. 2 (Autumn 1991).
Hatcher, J., `Labour, leisure and economic thought before the nineteenth century',
Past and Present, 160, (1998), pp. 64-115.
Hazard, B. E., `The Organization of the Boot and ShoeIndustry in Massachusetts
Before 1875', The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 27, Issue 2 (Feb.
1913), pp. 236-262.
Past andPresent,89, (1980),

Hobsbawm,E. J., andScott,J., 'Political Shoemakers',
pp. 86-114.
Jacob,M. C., `TheMentalLandscapeof the PublicSphere:A EuropeanPerspective',
Studies28 (1994),pp. 95-113.
Eighteenth-Century
Jones, C., `The Great Chain of Buying: Medical Advertisement, the Bourgeois Public
Sphereand the Origins of the French Revolution', American Historical Review,
101, (1996), pp. 13-40.
Jones, C., and Spang,R., `Sans-culottes,sanscafe, sanstabac: shifting realms of
necessity and luxury in eighteenth-centuryFrance' in Berg, M., and Clifford, H.,
(eds), Consumersand Luxury: ConsumerCulture in Europe, 1650-1850
(Manchester, 1999), pp. 37-62.
Joyce, P., `Work' in Thompson, F. M. L., (ed.), The Cambridge Social History of
Britain 1750-1950 (Cambridge, 1990),pp. 131-194.
`History and Post-Modernism', Past and Present, 133, (1991), p204-213.
`The imaginary discontentsof social history: a note of responseto Mayfield
and Thorne, and Lawrence and Taylor', Social History, 18,1 (1993), pp. 81-85.
221
`The end of social history?', Social History, 20, (1995), pp. 73-91.
`Refabricating Labour History; or From Labour History to the History of
Labour', Labour History Review,Vol 62, no.2 (1997), pp. 147-52.
`The Return of History: Postmodernismand the Politics of Academic
History in Britain', Past and Present, 158 (1998), pp. 207-235.
King, P., `PauperInventories and the Material Lives of the Poor in the Eighteenth and
Early Nineteenth Centuries' in Hitchcock, T., King, P., and Sharpe,P., (eds),
Chronicling Poverty: The Voicesand Strategiesof the English Poor, 1640-1840
(Basingstoke, 1997), pp. 155-191.
Kirk, N., Ìn Defence of Class: A critique of recent revisionist writing upon the
Review
International
of Social History,
nineteenth century working class',
32, (1987), pp 2-47.
`History, language,ideasand post-modernism:a materialist view', Social
History, 19, (1994), pp. 221-240.
`The continued relevanceand engagementsof class', Labour History
Review, 60, (1995), pp. 2-22.
La Vopa, A., `Conceiving a Public: Ideasand Society in Eighteenth-Century Europe',
Journal of Modern History 64 (1992), pp. 69-90.
Lawrence, J., and Taylor, M., `The Poverty of Protest: Gareth StedmanJonesand the
politics of language-a reply', Social History, 18, (1993), pp. 1-15.
Lemire, B., `Developing Consumerismand the Ready-MadeClothing Trade in
Britain, 1750-1800', Textile History, 15, (1984), pp. 21-44.
`Consumerismin Pre-Industrial and Early Industrial England: The Trade
in SecondhandClothes', Journal of British Studies,27, (1988), pp. 1-24.
Lenger, F., `Beyond Exceptionalism: Notes on the Artisanal Phaseof the Labour
Movement in France,England, Germany and the United States', International
Review of Social History, 36, (1991), pp. 1-23.
Lindert, P. H., and Williamson, J. G., Ènglish Workers' Living Standardsduring the
Industrial Revolution: A New Look', Economic History Review, 36,1, February
1983, pp. 1-25.
Lis, C., Lucassen,J., and Soly, H., (eds), `Before the Unions: wage earnersand
collective action in Europe, 1350-1850', International Review of Social
History, 39, Supplement2, (1994).
Lis, C., and Soly, H., "'An Irrestible Phalanx": JourneymenAssociations in Western
Europe, 1300-1800', International Review of Social History, Vol 39, supplement
no.2, (1994), pp. 11-52.
Mah, H., `Phantasies

of the Public Sphere:Rethinkingthe Habermasof Historians',
TheJournal of ModernHistory 72 (2000),pp. 153-182.
Malcolmson, R. W., `Workers' combinations in eighteenth-centuryEngland' in Jacob,

M., and J., (eds), The Origins of Anglo-American Radicalism (London,
1984), pp. 149-161.
Marcy, P. T., Èighteenth Century views of Bristol and Bristolians' in McGrath, P.,
(ed.), Bristol in the 18`" Century (Newton Abbot, 1972), pp. 11-40.
Mayfield, D., and Thorne, S., `Social history and its discontents: Gareth Stedman
Jonesand the politics of language', Social History, 17, (1992), pp. 165-188.
Minchinton, W. E., `Bristol: Metropolis of the West in the eighteenth century',
Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 5,4 (1954), pp. 69-89.
`The Port of Bristol in the Eighteenth Century' in McGrath, P., (ed.), Bristol in
the 18`hCentury (Newton Abbot, 1972),pp. 127-160.
Moher, J., `From Suppressionto Containment: Roots of Trade Union Law to 1825' in
222
Rule, J., (ed.), British Trade Unionism 1750-1850(London, 1988), pp. 74-97.
Morgan, K., `Bristol and the Atlantic trade in the eighteenthcentury', Economic
History Review cvii (1992), pp. 626-50.
Morgan, K., `The Economic Developmentof Bristol, 1700-1850' in Dresser,M., and
Ollerenshaw, P., (eds), TheMaking of Modern Bristol (Tiverton, 1996),
pp. 48-75.
Morris, R. J., `Property titles and the use of British urban poll books for social
analysis', Urban History Yearbook,1983,pp. 29-38.
Nash, G. B., Àrtisans and politics in eighteenth-centuryPhiladelphia' in Jacob,M.,
and Jacob, J., (eds), The Origins ofAnglo American Radicalism (London, 1984),
pp. 162-182.
Neale, R. S., `The standardof living, 1780-1844:a regional and class study',
Economic History Review, 19,1966, pp. 590-606.
Phelps-Brown, E. H., and Hopkins, S. V., `SevenCenturiesof the Prices of
Consumablescomparedwith Builders' Wage-Rates'in Carus-Wilson, E. M.,
(ed.), Essaysin Economic History: VolumeTwo (London, 1962), pp. 179-196.
Poole, S., `Scarcity and the Civic Tradition: Market Managementin Bristol, 17091815' in Randall, A., and Charlesworth,A., (eds),Markets, Market Culture and
Popular Protest in Eighteenth-CenturyBritain and Ireland (Liverpool,
1996), pp. 91-114.
Price, R., `The Future of British Labour History', International Review of Social
History, 36, (1991), pp. 249-260.
`Postmodernismas theory and history' in Belchem, J., and Kirk, N., (eds),
Languages of Labour (Aldershot, 1997),pp. 11-43.
Ranciere, J., `The Myth of the Artisan: Critical Reflections on a Category of Social
History' in Kaplan, S. L., and Koepp, J., (eds), Work in France:
Representations,Meaning, Organization, and Practice (New York, 1986),
pp. 317-334.
Randall, A., `The Industrial Moral Economy of the GloucestershireWeavers in the
Eighteenth Century' in Rule, J., (ed.), British Trade Unionism 1750-1850
(London, 1988), pp. 29-51.
Reddy, W. M., `Skeins, Scales,Discounts, Steam,and other Objects of Crowd Justice
in Early French Textile Mills', Comparative Studiesin Society and History, 21
(1979), pp. 204-213.
`Postmodernism
andthe Public Sphere:Implicationsfor an Historical
Ethnography',CulturalAnthropology7 (1992),pp. 135-169.
Keith, R., `The Social History of Craft in Germany: A New Edition of the Work of
Rudolf Wissell', International Review of Social History, 36 (1991), pp. 92-102.
Kendall, J., `Women and the Public Sphere', Gender & History 11 (1999), pp. 475
-489.
Riello, G., `From consumption towards production: the caseof the boot and shoe
trade in pre-industrial England', New ResearchersSession,Economic History
Society ConferenceProgramme,2001.
Rogers, N., `The Middling Sort in Eighteenth-CenturyPolitics' in Barry, J., and
Brooks, C., (eds), TheMiddling Sort of People: Culture, Society
and Politics
in England, 1550-1800 (London, 1994),pp. 159-180.
`Crowds and Political Festival in Georgian England' in Harris, T., (ed.), The
Politics of the Excluded, c. 1500-1850 (Cambridge, 2001),
pp. 233-264.
Rule, J., Àrtisan attitudes: a comparative survey of skilled labour and
proletarianisation before 1848', Bulletin of the Societyfor the Study of
223
Labour History, 50, (1985), pp. 22-31.

`The Property of Skill in the Period of Manufacture' in Joyce, P., (ed.), The
Historical Meanings of Work (Cambridge 1987),pp. 99-118.
`Labour Consciousnessand Industrial Conflict in Eighteenth-CenturyExeter'
in Stapleton,B., (ed.), Conflict and Communityin SouthernEngland: Essays
in the Social History of Rural and Urban Labour from Medieval to Modern
Times (Stroud 1992),pp. 92-109.
`Trade Unions, the Governmentand the French Revolution, 1789-1802', in
Rule, J., and Malcolmson, R., (eds),Protest and Survival: Essaysfor E. P.
Thompson(London, 1993),pp. 112-38.
Àgainst Innovation? Custom & Resistancein the Workplace 1700-1850' in
Harris, T., (ed.), Popular Culture in England 1700-1850(London, 1995),
pp. 168-188.
Èmployment and Authority: Mastersand Men in Eighteenth-Century
Industry' in Griffiths, P., Fox, A., and Hindle, S., (eds), The Experience of
Authority in Early Modern England (Basingstoke 1996), pp. 286-317.
`Proto-Unions?', Historical Studiesin Industrial Relations, 2, (1996),
pp. 139-52.
Ìndustrial Disputes, Wage Bargaining and the Moral Economy' in Randall,
A., and Charlesworth, A., (eds),Moral Economy and Popular Protest:
Crowds, Conflict and Authority (Basingstoke,2000), pp. 166-186.
Sanderson,M., `Literacy and the Industrial Revolution', Past & Present, 56 (1972),
pp. 75-104.
Schwarz, L. D., `The Standardof Living in the Long Run: London, 1700-1860',
Economic History Review, 38,1985, pp. 24-41.
`Trends in real wage rates, 1750-1790:a reply to Hunt and Botham',
Economic History Review,2"d Series,43,1, (1990), pp, 90-98.
Scott, J. W., Òn Language,Genderand Working-Class History', International Labor
(1987),
1-13.
History,
31,
Working-Class
pp.
and
Sewell, W. H., Àrtisans, Factory Workers, and the Formation of the French Working
Class, 1789-1848' in Katznelson, I., and Zolberg, A. R., (eds), Working-Class
Formation: Nineteenth-CenturyPatterns in WesternEurope and the United
States(Princeton, 1986),pp. 45-70.
`TheSans-CulotteRhetoricof Subsistence'in Baker,K. M., (ed.), The

FrenchRevolutionand the Creationof ModernPolitical Culture: Volume
Four, TheTerror (Oxford, 1994),pp. 249-269.
Shephard,Jr., E. J., `Social and GeographicMobility of the Eighteenth-Century Guild

Artisan: An Analysis of Guild Receptionsin Dijon, 1700-90' in Kaplan, S, L.,
and Koepp, C. J., (eds), Work in France: Representations,Meaning,
Organization, and Practice (New York, 1986), pp. 97-130.
Sonenscher,M., `Journeymen'sMigrations and Workshop Organization in
Eighteenth-Century France' in Kaplan, S. L., and Koepp, C. J., (eds), Work in
France.Representations,Meaning, Organization, and Practice (Ithaca, 1986), pp.
74-96.
StedmanJones,G., `The Determinist Fix : Some Obstaclesto the Further
Development of the Linguistic Approach to History in the 1990s', History
WorkshopJournal, 42, (1996), pp. 19-35.
Steinberg, M., `Culturally Speaking: finding a commonsbetween post-structuralism
and the Thompsonian perspective', Social History, 21,2 (1996), pp. 193-214,
Stevenson,J., `The "Moral Economy" of the English Crowd: Myth and Reality' in
224
Fletcher, A., and Stevenson,J., (eds), Order and Disorder in Early Modern
England (Cambridge, 1985),pp. 218-238.
Styles, J., Èmbezzlement,industry and the law in England, 1500-1800' in Berg, M.,
Hudson, P., and Sonenscher,M., (eds),Manufacture in town and country
before thefactory (Cambridge, 1983),pp. 173-210.
`Clothing the North: The Supply of Non-Elite Clothing in the Eighteenth
25, (1994), pp. 139-166.
History,
North
England',
Textile
of
-Century
`Product innovation in early modern London', Past and Present, 168,
(2000), pp. 124-169.
Sweet, R., `Freemenand Independencein English Borough Politics c. 1770-1830',
161,Past and Present, 161,1998, pp. 84-115.
Thompson, E. P., Ènglish Trade Unionism and Other labour movementsbefore
1790', Bulletin of the Societyfor the Study of Labour, 17, (1968), pp. 19-24.
Ànthropology and the Discipline of Historical Context', Midland History,
1, (1972), pp. 41-55.
Èighteenth-centuryEnglish society : classstruggle without class?',
Social History, 3,2 (1978), pp. 133-165.
`The Moral Economy of the English Crowd in the Eighteenth Century',
Past and Present, 50,1971; reprinted in his Customsin Common
(Penguin, 1991),pp. 185-258.
Tucker, R. S., `Real Wages of Artisans in London, 1729-1935' in Taylor, A. J., (ed.),
The Standard of Living in Britain in the Industrial Revolution (London, 1975),
pp. 21-35.
Underdown, P. T., `Henry Cruger and Edmund Burke: Colleaguesand Rivals at the
Bristol Election of 1774', William and Mary Quarterly, XV, 1958, pp. 14-34.
Vernon, J., `Who's afraid of the linguistic turn? The politics of social history and its
discontents', Social History, 19, (1994), pp. 81-97.
Weisner, M. E., `Wandervogelsand Women: Journeymen'sConceptsof Masculinity
in Early Modern Germany', Journal of Social History 24 (1991), pp. 767-782.
Wrigley, C., `The Webbs working on trade union history', History Today, 37, (1987),
pp. 51-55.
Unpublished theses and manuscripts

Baigent, E., `Bristol society in the later eighteenthcentury with special referenceto
the handling by computer of fragmentary historical sources', D. Phil. thesis,
University of Oxford, (1985).
Boss, B., `The Bristol Infirmary, 1761-2 and the "laborious-industrious poor"",
Ph.D. Thesis, University of Bristol, 1995.
Gorsky, M., `Charity, mutuality and philanthropy: voluntary provision in Bristol,
1800-70', Ph.D. thesis, University of Bristol, 1995.
Jackson,0., `Receiving revolution: the newspaperpress,revolutionary ideology and
politics in Britain, 1789-1848', Ph.D. thesis, University of Bristol, 1999.
Poole, S., `Popular Politics in Bristol, Somersetand Wiltshire 1791-1805', Ph.D.
thesis, University of Bristol, 1993.
Walker, M. J., 'The extent of guild control of tradesin England, c. 1660-1820', Ph.D.
thesis, University of Cambridge, 1986.
UHNERS
225 1 OFBRISTOL,
LIBRARY

288471

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

288471

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

This electronic thesis or dissertation has been

downloaded from Explore Bristol Research,

ARTISANS AND THE CITY: A SOCIAL HISTORY OF BRISTOL'S

JULIAN PAUL DAVIES

A thesis submitted to the Faculty of Arts

Department of Historical Studies

Words (text only): 71,652

This study looks at Bristol artisansin the late eighteenthcentury in considerable

Dedication and acknowledgements

Part One: Production and the Labour Force

Chapter 1: Production and Marketing in the Shoemaking and

Chapter 2: The Division of Labour, Gender and Mobility in the

Part Two: Living and Working Conditions

Chapter 3: The Geography of Work, Housing, and Occupational

Part Three: Agency: Artisans and the `Public Sphere'

Chapter 6: Before the French Revolution: Artisans and Electoral Politics

Table 3:4 - Shoemakersand Tailors as a proportion of the Bristol-resident

Table4:6 - Index of Prices(2), 1769-1799

Table 4:7 Composite Cost of Living Index for Bristol, 1769-1799

Table4:9 - RealWagesof Bristol's JourneymenTailors, 1773-1796

Table6:1 - Votesfor Candidatesin Bristol ParliamentaryElections,1774-1784 178

out-voters that voted for each Candidate

Table6:5 - 1774Election:The Proportionof Bristol-residentvotersand

out-voters that voted for each Candidate

Table6: 15- The Tailors:Distributionof `Plumper'and `Double' votes

Table 6: 16 - ExperiencedVoters as a Proportion of the Electorate,

Picture4- Illustrationof Tailors at Work (1806)

PERSPECTIVES OF LABOUR HISTORY

life was invaluable because`often a piece of cultural history is embodied in it which is of

labour legislation were concernsof Bristol's shoemakersand tailors in the yearsbetween

The ideathat associations

aidedthe work processareexaminedin chaptertwo, while its useduringindustrialaction

In the eighteenthcenturyBristol washometo manyindustriesandfields of commerce.

to manufacturesoap,dating back to 1523,and by the eighteenthcentury the city produced

weremore expressiveof socialandeconomicchanges,thosesuchas `ranks' and `orders'

Despitethis overall growth,the proliferationof provincial newspapers,

21Thompson,Makingof theEnglish WorkingClass,p. 259.

23Rule(ed.), British TradeUnionism, 1.

32Webb, History of Trade Unionism, p. 1.

64P. T. Marcy, 'EighteenthCenturyviewsof Bristol andBristolians'in P. McGrath,(ed.), Bristol in the 18th

65Thompson, 'Class Struggle without Class', p. 145.

70Joyce, Visions the People,

74J. Rule, `Industrial Disputes, Wage Bargaining

92R. J. Morris, `Propertytitles andtheuse British urbanpoll booksfor

93J. E. Norton, Guide to the National

PART ONE: PRODUCTION AND THE LABOUR FORCE

TABLE 1: 1 : SHOEMAKERS' RETAIL ADVERTS, 1769-1800

Snow and New

Boot, Shoe,Clog and Pattin-Maker

Boot and Shoemakers

The Ready-Made Sector

The predominanceof ready-madegoods in the adverts can be explained by three factors;

In this regardBristol's shoemakingtrademay havemirroredthat of eighteenth-century

London and the Role of Fashion

he provided an `elegantAssortment of FashionableLadies' and Gentlemens' BOOTS and

With regardsto production methodsthe advertshave been categorisedby three

TABLE 1:2 : TAILORS' RETAIL ADVERTS, 1769-1800

Taylor & Salesman

Ladies' Habit-Maker and Taylor

, anguageui rersonai service

Taylor & Salesman

According to Styles, the whole raison d'etre

London and the Role of Fashion

For all thesereasons,then,it is perhapsnot surprisingthat the term 'fashion' enteredthe