Nantwich shoemakers' strike
How they settled dispute in 1872

In 1872, in Nantwich, it was a ‘currier’ who became an arbitrator and finally helped settle a strike with local shoemakers.

The ‘currier’ (a person employed in the leather trade) was William Cooper who found himself at the centre of a bitter wrangle between the shoemakers and their masters.

The strike had arisen after a period of national prosperity in the trade and in Nantwich the shoemakers asked for 3d per pair increase in rates, followed by the riveters and finishers who demanded an overall 25% increase in pay.

The masters hit back by refusing to employ any riveters or finishers and soon there was a lock-out, though the dispute was confined to Nantwich. As a result, upwards of 200 shoemakers went off to other towns for better rewards.

At this stage the Cordwainers Union, of London and Stafford, got involved, but the Nantwich masters said they could not match the rates of elsewhere because of increased costs in raw materials..

Altogether about 500 men were laid-off, along with the women in five machine shops, because of ‘the shortage of boot tops’.

Enter Mr Cooper, who knew the men’s leader socially. It was he who suggested the two sides enter into ‘give and take’ negotiations.

The idea met with a favourable response and the discussions were held at the Crown, Nantwich, both parties in separate rooms, Mr Cooper acting for hours as ago-between.

Eventually a deal was struck at midnight – it was a compromise; the men agreed to accept half their original demand, whilst the masters promised there would be no victimisation.

A large crowd has gathered outside the Crown, eager for an end to the dispute. Local tradesmen, especially drapers, grocers and publicans, had been badly affected, so the news was met with general ‘jollification’.

Both sides thanked Mr Cooper for his time and trouble, though in just over twelve months they were all back where they started…another strike, more lock-outs and a three-day week.

In 1872, in Nantwich, it was a ‘currier’ who became an arbitrator and finally helped settle a strike with local shoemakers.

The ‘currier’ (a person employed in the leather trade) was William Cooper who found himself at the centre of a bitter wrangle between the shoemakers and their masters.

The strike had arisen after a period of national prosperity in the trade and in Nantwich the shoemakers asked for 3d per pair increase in rates, followed by the riveters and finishers who demanded an overall 25% increase in pay.

The masters hit back by refusing to employ any riveters or finishers and soon there was a lock-out, though the dispute was confined to Nantwich. As a result, upwards of 200 shoemakers went off to other towns for better rewards.

At this stage the Cordwainers Union, of London and Stafford, got involved, but the Nantwich masters said they could not match the rates of elsewhere because of increased costs in raw materials..

Altogether about 500 men were laid-off, along with the women in five machine shops, because of ‘the shortage of boot tops’.

Enter Mr Cooper, who knew the men’s leader socially. It was he who suggested the two sides enter into ‘give and take’ negotiations.

The idea met with a favourable response and the discussions were held at the Crown, Nantwich, both parties in separate rooms, Mr Cooper acting for hours as ago-between.

Eventually a deal was struck at midnight – it was a compromise; the men agreed to accept half their original demand, whilst the masters promised there would be no victimisation.

A large crowd has gathered outside the Crown, eager for an end to the dispute. Local tradesmen, especially drapers, grocers and publicans, had been badly affected, so the news was met with general ‘jollification’.

Both sides thanked Mr Cooper for his time and trouble, though in just over twelve months they were all back where they started…another strike, more lock-outs and a three-day week.

 

********

A strike of 8 May, 1873 was reported in the 'Crewe Guardian' under a notice about men leaving Nantwich for Stafford, whilst their families were locked out by the masters. Those not otherwise involved were working a three day week.

The strike was, like the previous one, over a wage demand. This time there was no compromise or arbitration. By mid June the affair was a 'matter of endurance' and the workers' demands were getting smaller.

Some intimidation, physical or moral, was put on suspected scabs. One case came to light in court. In front of the Rev. Folliot and W. Tollemache Esq., was heard the dispute between Thomas Sutton, shoemaker, and William Wild, shoe manufacturer. Sutton was a presser at Wild's factory and requested Mr. Wild to send him 29 pairs of tops and bottoms with lasts, presses and rivets so he could make them up, at home. When Mr. Wild asked for the competed work to be returned Sutton replied that he had not done anything for fear of the other men, and returned the goods unfinished. Wild said he would not press the case if the work was done, which Sutton was bound to do by the court on a £10 bond.

By July there were signs of a possible breakthrough:
'The masters on Tuesday night offered removals of restrictions on union men and exactly half demands on everything. The men refused. Mr. Heap has kept aloof throughout the strike, giving the men what they asked. Elsewhere the strike continues as before'.

The next week 'the men sought interviews with their masters (on Saturday) which took place on Monday. Meetings have been held almost daily since. Terms were telegraphed to the Nantwich men working in Stafford. On 18 July a meeting was held that ended the strike, when delegates from the local union and national officials from Stafford and London agreed with the masters a formula of roughly 50% of the claim on most items.

Work recommenced the following Monday 'quite a little army' of men returning on the night train that Saturday. The trade remained fairly quiet from then on, with few if any disputes.

The master's victory was a somewhat pyrrhic one, as other centres took Nantwich markets. Nonetheless, the masters seemed prepared to face these consequences rather than acceed to union demands, even though the main demand was only for pay parity with nearby centres.

Mr. John Heath of the Barony was noted in the 'Guardian' as staying aloof from the disputes, by acceding to union demands. His company fared no better or worse than his intransigent companions, because he remained in the Directories as boot and shoe manufacture until 1892.

The town came to rely upon clothing factories for prosperity, but these employed mostly female labour. It could be argued that they saved the town's prosperity, but a cynic might ask whether they attracted away cheap female labour from shoemaking, so damaging that trade.

In the end the Nantwich shoe trade was not a victim of militant trade unionism. The strikes, especially in 1873 were bitter, but it takes two to make a quarrel. The masters defeated the men, but did not have the initiative to build on the victory. They just wanted to keep wages low so they could stay producing cheap boots using hand powered machinery, a trade and technology that died after 1900, taking the town's shoemaking industry with it.


BACK TO ARCHIVES INDEX