The Spitalfields Acts, 1773-1824

The Economists and the Combination Laws: A Reappraisal

“…What took place in the parliamentary debates was in fact open bargaining, in which the repeal of the Combination Laws was presented as a necessary consequence of the revocation of the Spitalfields Acts, the latter repealed just a few days before the Combination Laws. Ricardo played a leading role in the debates over the repeal of the Spitalfields Acts (Clapham 1916; Hupfel 2012), and there is no doubt he was favorable to this new arrangement, as were all the other economists considered here. Although they did not intervene prominently in parliamentary consideration of the repeal of the Combination Laws, they might have been perceived as favorable to the measure, explaining why their authority was used to support it.…”

Flowers in the Slums: Weavers' Floristry in the Age of Spitalfields' Decline

“…John H. Clapham and M. Dorothy George treat the weavers' floristry as the leisure of the 'labour aristocracy' and as evidence that industrialisation did not significantly reduce the standard of living for the British working classes. 5 By contrast, social historians like E. P. Thompson, Peter Linebaugh, and Marc W. Steinberg see the weavers' floristry as emblematic of an independent lifestyle that was destroyed by industrial capitalism and laissez-faire legislation. 6 Every account that romanticises pre-repeal Spitalfields weavers' floristry fails to mention that in 1838 weavers were still growing flowers in the post-repeal Spitalfields slums.…”

The Dialogue of Struggle: The Contest over Ideological Boundaries in the Case of London Silk Weavers in the Early Nineteenth Century

“…The Acts were passed to appease the weavers, who periodically engaged in a series of violent protests between 1765 and 1773 in response to trade depressions and competition from overseas goods (Clapham 1916;Hammond and Hammond 1967;Plummer 1972;Rude 1962;Shelton 1972). By 1823, when a group of silk manufacturers petitioned for their repeal, the Acts stood as one of the last exemplars of protective labor legislation and thus as a prime target by which political economists could assert their ascendancy.…”

“…Additionally, masters were not allowed to distribute work outside the district at lower rates. These clauses guaranteed a minimum piece rate for all weavers regardless of their trade branch and effectively prevented the rise of an unfettered capitalist labor market (Bland et al 1919;Clapham 1916;Plummer 1972). They also distinguished the silk weaving trade as a respectable industry.…”

“…The friction of these increasingly resolute battles among artisans and manufacturers began to set sparks flying, and an ember was to ignite the staple trade of this district with the fortunes of perhaps 50,000 people all told dependent on its production (Warner 1922: 61-62). The weavers, from their perspective, were graced by one of the last great pieces of protective trade legislation, the so-called Spitalfields Acts (Bland et al 1919;Clapham 1916). However, for the large merchants of the City, who brokered goods and increasingly employed the weavers, this legislation was an odious burden.…”