|
III
Even into the eighteenth century, Glasgow remained relatively small by modern standards with a population of around 13,000. Nevertheless, it was one of the ten largest towns in Great Britain. From maps made during the period, it is apparent that even as late as 1760, Glasgow was little more than a crossroads. One road ran down from the cathedral to a bridge over the Clyde. The other, the main street, ran parallel to the river. The only remnants of pre-eighteenth-century Glasgow are the cathedral, a small house, and the Tron Steeple. From this intersection, the city seemed to grow in waves. Glasgow had not yet developed a reputation as a dirty, industrial town. In fact, Daniel Defoe, the English author of
Robinson Crusoe, wrote that the Glasgow of the 1700's was "one of the cleanest, most beautiful and best built cities in Great Britain." As a Royal Burgh, it also had an edge both in the development of its trade and industry. More than any other city in Scotland, Glasgow's civic life was dominated by the merchant and trade houses. Whereas Edinburgh had many more professional men and members of the gentry, Glasgow was more than 70% merchants and tradesmen. Perhaps the greatest evidence of the feeling of ownership by the trade houses was their response to a For all intents and purposes, the Merchants and Trades Houses ran the city. They elected their own ballies to enforce their rulings. They provided discipline for their members and adjudicated disputes. They maintained hospitals and paid pensions for the widows and families of guild members. One leader within the Trades House of Glasgow was a weaver named James Smith. In the 1740's he served as a deacon of his craft, a ballie, and the "conveener" of the Trades House. Additionally, in 1740 he entered into a partnership with three Glasgow merchants, John Anderson, Walter Brock, and James Wardrop. In some ways, the story of these four men and their enterprise provides a backdrop to look at changes, both political and social, which set the stage for Glasgow's emergence in the industrial revolution. In subsequent generations, their descendants reflect the changes in the work force that were precipitated by industrialization. The original agreement between these four men was for the manufacture and sale of tartan. The partnership papers were signed on the Sixth of August 1740, and were to last for a period of twelve years, commencing on September First of that same year. Six years into the contract, however, the parntership was dissolved. The stock was divided, and all outstanding debts weresold to John Anderson. This unanimous action was taken on the First of July 1746, and was duly noted by a "synd minute in the company... book." Three years later, a formal, legal draft was drawn up with a detailed explanation of the partnership, the nature of the dissolution, and the date on which all business ceased. This two page document was "wrote upon stamp paper by Robert Barclay, writer in Glasgow, at Glasgow on the Eighteenth day of May Japrest [?] and forty nine." In addition to the signatures of the four principals, the paper is witnessed by Robert Brock and Andrew Mitchelhills. If the dissolution was unanimously agreed, why did they go to all the trouble and expense to file with the Council and with the session? And why did they wait three years to execute the legal document, when they obviouly believed that a notation in their own books would serve as well? The answer reflects the times, and not "a falling out" between Messrs. Anderson, Brock, Smith, and Wardrop. That these men remained on good terms is demonstrated in the marriages of the next generation. (James Smith married Lillias Brock, Robert Smith married Annabella Wardrop, and George Smith married Jean Wardrop.) The key to this dissolution lies in the dates, and in a knowledge of Scottish history. On 25 July 1745, Prince Charles Edward Stuart returned to the Highlands from exile in France. He was able to rally support among the Highland Clans for his cause which was to claim the throne for the Stuarts thereby supplanting the Hanoverian, George II. The Jacobites, as they were called, marched south winning impressive victories. Scotland's capital, Edinburgh, surrendered after the battle of Prestonpans, and Prince Charlie wrote to Glasgow demanding money and an army. The Council sent more than £5,500, but no troops. The action was less a test of loyalty than intimidation. Glaswegians lived in dread of the MacGregors and other clansmen who lived on the northern outskirts of the city. When the Highland army moved further south, the victories continued. The citizens of Manchester and Derby even turned out in support of the would-be king, but then fortunes started to change. On the outskirts of London, doubts invaded those in charge. Historians point out that the failure of the Jacobite cause began with the loss of will, and not on the battlefield. They were so close to victory and so far from home. Thinking that the conquests had come too easy, the Highlanders returned to the North, thus avoiding what they feared might be a trap. On the return home following their victories, they came to Glasgow. This time the Prince's demands were higher, and he was given £10,000 and thousands of shirts, waistcoats, stockings and trousers. Perhaps some of the tartan fabric manufactured by James Smith found its way into the clothing and stores of the Jacobites. Finally, on 3 January 1746, he left the city. Three months later, on 16 April 1746, the Highland army was crushed by government forces on Drumossie Moor near Culloden. For his part, Andrew Cochrane, then Provost of Glasgow, spent three months in London convincing the Crown that Glasgow's losses were a calamity of war that should be repaid. Soon after Culloden, the tartan which had been the trademark of Scotland, became a symbol of resistance for the Jacobite cause. The government, intent on eliminating the threat that the clan system represented, adopted policies aimed at the eradication of Highland culture. The Disarming Act went so far as to forbid the wearing of Highland garb or any part of it from August 1747. In December 1748, the army began to actively enforce the law by seizing offenders. The penalty for a first offense was six months in prison, a second offense meant transportation for seven years. In short, this was not the time to be in the business of manufacturing and selling tartan fabric. When this time line of national events is set against the details of the dissolution of the partnership, a clear picture emerges. At the very time that tartan is closely associated with the Jacobite (Catholic) cause, Anderson, Brock, Smith, and Wardrop discontinue their partnership and report this to the Protestant session. John Anderson purchased the outstanding accounts from the other three, perhaps out of the promise of the Provost that the war losses were to be paid by the Crown. Three years later, when arrests are being made, they file a formal paper documenting that they had ceased their manufacturing and trading in tartan prior to the government prohibition. The next generation of Smith's in the weaving trade were also in the business of manufacturing, but the product was in silk, not tartan. William Smith, silk weaver and manufacturer, married Ann Bradshaw. Their son, James, married Lillias, the daughter of Robert Brock, in 1785. Their son, William, married Elizabeth Sneddon in 1801, and their son, James married Lilias, daughter of James Allan, in 1828. These four generations of weavers and their families bridged the golden age of Glasgow handloom weavers and closed the book on the trade when industrialization swept past. According to historian, T.C. Smout, the handloom weavers "began the industrial revolution as a despised calling, and ended up around 1830 as the aristocrats of labour." (p. 420) As noted in the description of the dissolution of partnership in 1749, the woolen industry in Scotland was in a slump. In 1760, silks were introduced at Paisley, and the Smiths were quick to embrace the new product. As manufacturers, they were equiped to be more entrepreneurial than many private weaving families that depended on the income from a single loom. While weaving was still a cottage industry, the Smiths owned the looms that were placed in the weavers' homes. Two other innovations also improved the fortunes of the industry. They were the invention of the flying shuttle which was fitted to Scottish handlooms in the 1770s, and the mechanization of the spinning industry. The flying shuttle doubled production from each loom, and mechanized spinning meant an almost unlimited supply of yarn. Needless to say, the lifestyle of the weavers changed dramatically. Whereas weaving had been tied to farming, now those in Glasgow and the surrounding weaving villages could abandon agriculture completely. In succeeding years, however, the success of the weaving industry became its own downfall. Even before machine weaving could match or exceed the quality of handloom weaving, income of weaving families began to fall after peaking at the end of the eighteenth century. This situation was due to several factors. First, the weaving industry was spread throughout Scotland as a cottage industry which made the industry difficult to regulate and strong unions did not emerge. Second, the craft did not take a long period of apprenticeship, and many families turned to weaving by acquiring their own looms. The growth of the labor force and the proliferation of looms, brought an early end to the financial boom that the weavers experienced. In 1828, James Smith married Lilias Allan, the daughter of a weaving family in the village of Auchinairn on the outskirts of Glasgow. This would be the last generation to draw its livelihood from the weaver's craft. They were married in Cadder Parish, though soon after the birth of their first child, William, they moved back within environs of Glasgow. As with previous generations, the family continued in the tradition of manufacturing. They owned handlooms used in the production of Paisley shawls. As they were not dependent on a single loom for their entire income, they were able to face the decline of their industry with more options than many. In short, their children were able to make choices, and all eventually abandoned the loom. Only their daughter, Lillias who was born in 1836, took up weaving. On her marriage license, her profession was listed as "Powerloom weaver", and she made her mark rather than sign her name. This serves to underscore the failure of the craft. Much weaving was being mechanized, and Glasgow was becoming a city of factories where machines were tended by women and children. Weavers of previous generations had taken pride in their ability to read and write, so the fact that Lillias could not sign her name says something of the changes that had taken place. Lillias did not continue long in this changed industry. At the age of twenty, she married William Smith who had tied his future to the then emerging railway industry. Eventually, Lillias would be able to read and write, but her childhood was spent at a time that did not allow much opportunity for women or weavers. Change came quickly, however, and Lillias' case should be contrasted with her younger sister, Christina, who did receive an education and became a chemist (pharmacist). She was married to Dr. Peter Forbes Jardin. The other children of Lilias Allan and James Smith took opportunities that became available. In addition to Lillias and Christina, William owned a dry goods store, James Allan Smith became a physician, and John Allan Smith became a chemist. Thus, a family's long history in the weaving industry came to an end in one generation.
|