INDUSTRIES
INTRODUCTION
Before entering into a detailed
relation of the industries of Middlesex it will be well to look
at the characteristic features of
the county. A glance at the
map reveals its somewhat compact shape, with
rivers on three boundaries, and an irregular
range of hills on the north.
As regards its history, Middlesex has been
for centuries an appanage of London; and its
natural resources have been more or less at
the service of the inhabitants of the metropolis. A closer topographical inspection
shows further that all the highways radiate
from London, and that there are no important cross-roads whatever. There are five
so-called market-towns, but none of them
are of high rank, unless Uxbridge should
claim to be so. Except that Brentford and
Staines are upon the same road, and that
Brentford connects with Uxbridge by a
branch of that main road, there is no special
connexion between any two of them as members of the same community. Of cross-roads
those worth naming are: traces of an old
highway from Kingston (Surrey) through
Uxbridge to the north-west; traces of a very
ancient way from Brentford to Harrow and
beyond; and perhaps a road joining Enfield
with Barnet (Hertfordshire). Every other
track tends directly to the metropolis.
Even little more than a century ago the
condition of the turnpike roads near London
was very unsatisfactory, in spite of the large
sums of money available for cleansing and
repair. The road from Hadley through
South Mimms was insufferably bad, and
disgraceful to the trustees. The Edgware
road was no better, the mud being 4 in. deep
after every heavy rain in summer, and 9 in.
all the winter. The menders never thought
of scraping it, but laid fresh gravel on the
sloppy surface; the first cart cut it into
ruts, and so it remained all the year round.
The Uxbridge road was even worse; and
during the winter 1797-8 there was only
one passable track, and that less than 6 ft.
wide and usually 8 in. deep in fluid mud. The
rest of the road on either side was covered
with adhesive mire from 1 ft. to 1½ ft. deep.
And it must be remembered that the road
from Tyburn to Uxbridge was supposed to
have more broad-wheeled wagons pass over
it than any other in the county; they naturally monopolized the fairly traversable 8 in.
of mud, and forced light vehicles and horsemen into the bordering quagmire. During
that winter, remarks an indignant sufferer, (fn. 1)
'The only labourers to be seen on the road
were those of a neighbouring gentleman,
and they were employed in carting the footpath into his inclosures.' The road from
Hyde Park Corner through Brentford and
Hounslow was equally filthy in winter,
though the king often travelled along it
several times a week. It is rather curious
that the parish highways were sometimes
much better: 'hard and clean in every sort
of weather, so much so, that gentlemen may
ride along them, even directly after rain, and
scarcely receive a splash.' At the present day
the main roads out of London, and many of
the by-roads also, are well looked after, and
furnish little occasion for reasonable complaint.
The main roads, it may be said, have for
the most part existed on their present sites for
long ages past. Where they have been
altered, the cause of displacement has been
sometimes local necessity or caprice, and
sometimes national interest. One example
(of those few which have been investigated)
will be an interesting illustration of the point.
The great road to the north of London,
passing to the eastward of old St. Pancras
Church, along what is now the Hornsey Road,
went over Muswell Hill and by Colney Hatch
to Whetstone. This proved so deep and
miry in winter 'that it was refused of wayfaring men and carriers, in regard whereof it
was agreed betweene the Bishop of London
and the Countrie that a newe waie shoulde bee
layde forth through the said Bishops parks,
beginning at Highgate Hill to leade directly
to Whetstone.' (fn. 2) The old road to Highgate
was doubtless but a communication along the
ridge to Hampstead, with little more than local
value. The augmentation of the toll revenue
at Highgate must have benefited greatly by
the change. But the time came at last,
when 'way-faring men and carriers' were
not the only classes to be served by the new
highway. Coaches and carriages found it an
arduous affair to cross the hill, and at length,
after much protest and waiting for redress,
it was determined to improve the road by
diverting it to the right upon a lower level.
This was in 1812. At first a tunnel was
projected, about 300 yds. in length. After
about half of it was constructed, the whole
fell in early one morning, luckily before the
workmen were on duty. It was then determined to revise the plan. Operations were
resumed with a deep open cutting, an archway to be thrown over at the point where
the road is traversed by the Hornsey Lane.
The road was completed, and opened for
traffic on 21 August 1813, and proved very
welcome as an easier route to the north. (fn. 3)
The acclivity was still considerable, and in
actual distance only 100 yds. or so were
saved, but it has well justified the enterprise
of the promoters. The archway was of stone
with enormous brick supports and a stone
balustrade, and had the merit of being rather
ornamental when approached from either
side. It is now superseded by an iron bridge,
on bolder lines, more suitable to the needs of
a busier generation.
The decrease of traffic on the Middlesex
roads after 1840 was never so marked as on
some of the great trade routes in more rural
counties; and any falling-off has been regained
within the last decade owing to the development of electric tramways, and the heavy
motor goods-services of various companies.
Both of these systems, in fact, are now vigorous competitors with the suburban railway
lines. Owing, however, to the position of
London at its heart, few counties are so
well supplied as Middlesex with railroad
facilities, since the national trunk lines radiate
from the capital as a centre; the latest to
acquire a terminus within the metropolitan
area being the Great Central Railway at
Marylebone. The construction of the electric tubes and their gradual extension to the
suburbs has also, within the last few years,
introduced a further element of competition
as regards passenger traffic. The tramways,
the omnibus companies, and the older railways have all been affected, though in different degrees. The loss of suburban traffic has
been the main factor in suggesting the project for amalgamating the three great lines
of the Great Northern, Great Eastern, and
Great Central which is under consideration.
The county of Middlesex has the advantage
of extensive means of water-carriage. Before
the railways came, this advantage was more
apparent than it is now when the value of
time, in speedy dispatch and removal, is
more fully appreciated. To begin with, the
entire eastern and southern borders of the
county are provided with navigable rivers, in
the Thames and the Lea, while the Grand
Junction Canal and its offshoots supply the
needs of the county from Uxbridge in the
west to several parts of the metropolis. The
first canalization of the River Lea was undertaken about the year 1770, at a period when
such measures were in their infancy, or were
being undertaken with timidity. During the
remaining years of the 18th century more
ambitious efforts were made. A great many
useful canals were formed throughout the
kingdom, some of which have become disused
through the influence of railway enterprise.
Among those which remain in operation, and
are to some extent prosperous, the Lea and
Stort Navigation and the Grand Junction
Canal may be included. They are almost a
necessity to the localities they serve, and their
proprietors may be congratulated on their dividends.
The Grand Junction Canal, with its
direct and uninterrupted communications with
Staffordshire, Warwickshire, and Lancashire,
enters the county at Uxbridge on the western
outskirts of the town. Its course is through
the levels of Cowley, West Drayton, and
Southall, at a nearly uniform elevation above
the ordnance datum of 100 ft. In the lastnamed parish a short series of locks brings it
to the level of the River Brent, which is from
this point canalized until it reaches the
Thames at Brentford. It is significant of the
importance of this canal to the traffic for
which it was designed that a short branch of
the Great Western Railway runs nearly
parallel, from Southall to Brentford, without
seriously diminishing the prosperity of the
canal.
The success of the Grand Junction Canal
naturally led to extensions of the principle. It
was determined to make a supplementary
cutting in order to bring navigation to the
West End of London, and an Act of Parliament was obtained for extending the canal
to Paddington. At the end of the 18th
century Paddington was a rural hamlet,
thinly populated, one of those almost unnoticed places that lie apart from the highways.
A spirited life was put into the place when
the new canal was opened in 1801; warehouses were built, dwelling-houses sprang up
around, and by the day of opening Paddington
had become a suburb. Great expectations
were formed of its future; the first day was
kept with festivity, and inaugurated by an
aquatic procession.
The Paddington Canal begins with a
junction at Bull's Bridge, on the River Cran,
north of Cranford, pursuing thence a winding
course, without locks, by Northolt, Greenford,
Alperton, and Kensal Green; an ideal country for canal-constructors. The success of the
enterprise was immediate. Traders had found
a new and excellent route to and from the
Midlands. Passage-boats with merchandise
went daily to Uxbridge. Twice a week
during the summer months other boats with
passenger accommodation went backwards and
forwards, and as late as the year 1853 a
Sunday traffic of pleasure trips to Greenford
Green was largely patronized. (fn. 4)
In 1812 a further extension was proposed
and soon carried into effect. Under the name
of the Regent's Canal, a cut was made round
the entire metropolis to the River Thames,
near Limehouse. There are many locks and
bridges, and two tunnels, one under Maida
Hill, and another of considerable length at
Islington. There is a dock with large dépôts
and warehouses in the City Road, besides a
substantial dock at Limehouse. (fn. 5) The canal
has been of immense benefit to the eastern
and north-eastern districts of London. Miles
of warehouses and yards occupy now the
space of the green fields that existed at the
period of its construction. Few undertakings
of the kind have been justified so signally in
their results.
In olden times there was one harbour in
the very heart of the City of London, at the
mouth of the Fleet River, which was navigable at least as far as Holborn. A mention
of Fleet Hithe, in an old record, (fn. 6) is enough
to establish the former existence of a tiny
port near Blackfriars. Besides this, on the
extreme eastern boundary of the county there
was some sort of harbour at the mouth of the
River Lea.
The extension of the canal system naturally
incited the commercial and engineering classes
to fresh efforts for the convenience of navigation. Docks were now wanted, and not
many years elapsed before several spacious
docks were given to the metropolis. Dock
extension has never since these times ceased
to be demanded. Indeed the need for
remedial measures has long become urgent,
and it is to be hoped that the Act of 1908
establishing the new 'Port of London Authority' (fn. 7) will afford a much-needed relief, and
stop the serious decline in the trade of the port.
The West India Docks were the earliest
of such enterprises, at least in the county of
Middlesex. They were begun in July 1800
and took something over two years in construction. A good feature of the undertaking
was the making a water-way across the Isle
of Dogs, thus avoiding a long bend of the
river. The West Indian trade at this time had
grown enormously. Shippers were rather tired
of waterside wharves, with their lack of warehouse room, and lighterage was increasingly
troublesome and expensive. The first stone of
the docks was laid in the presence of a great
assemblage of merchants and shipowners,
headed by William Pitt and Lord Chancellor
Loughborough. The enthusiasm of that day
was well justified when the work was done.
The docks were occupied, and the new warehouses speedily filled with sugar, rare woods,
and other staple products of the West. The
saving to the mercantile community was
immediate and permanent, and the revenue is
understood to have benefited no less. Confidence in the docking system was established.
A few years saw the completion of the
London Docks (1805), the East India Docks
(1806), St. Katharine's Dock (1828). Since
those days dock extension has proceeded with
intermittent but steady steps outside the
boundary of our county.
The River Thames, after all, has a practical
utility to which no combination of artificial
water-courses can aspire. It is a perfect highway; and in its course of about 43 miles as
the southern boundary of the county from
Staines Bridge to the mouth of the River Lea,
affords a prodigious water-supply, beside all the
possible conveniences offered by water-side
premises. As to actual traffic upon its surface, the Thames was, until the middle of the
19th century, a most important and lively
artery for the purpose either of business or
pleasure. The existing steps, wharves, and
water-lanes are as old as anything on the
river, and betoken a habit of passing to and
fro by water, even if our chronicles did not
testify to the prevalence of the waterman's
calling. The rise of steam-navigation did not
materially affect the waterman; it is rather
the haste engendered by a busier age which
has rendered the pursuit of his calling less
lucrative. The first steamer that usurped the
pleasure side of his trade was the Endeavour,
which plied to Richmond in the year 1830.
By 1842 the passenger traffic by steamers had
grown enormously. In the summer of that
year there were no fewer than four steamboat
companies making a profitable traffic on the
Thames. (fn. 8) But, as in the case of the Paddington barge above mentioned, these things lost
their popularity when speed, alike in pleasure
and business, was the urgent demand of a
rising generation.
The government of the river was originally
in the hands of the Corporation of London,
whose jurisdiction was limited to the lower
part, beginning at Staines Bridge. This
lasted until the year 1857, when the Thames
Conservancy Board was created by Act of
Parliament. Later legislation gave the Thames
Conservancy power over the whole length of
the river, besides a distance of five miles up
all its tributaries. The duties of the board
include the maintenance of weirs, locks, &c.,
prevention of pollution by sewage, regulations
as to fishing and pleasure-traffic, care of the
towing-path (which is continuous from Putney
upwards), dredging, and the general control
of the disposition of the water.
Middlesex is wholly within the Thames
basin; so that every spring within the county
finds its way into one or other of the northern
tributaries of the river. Of these, the Colne
skirts the western boundary of the county,
receiving no less than five important affluents
at or near Uxbridge; near Staines it pours a
good volume of water into the Thames, besides forming a separate channel which finds
its way to Hampton Court. The Cran,
rising in the higher levels near Harrow, and
augmented by the Yeading brooks, passes
through Cranford to Twickenham and Isleworth. The Brent, the stream of which is
arrested by a large reservoir constructed by
the Canal Company, meets the Thames at
Brentford. Several small bourns flowed into
the Thames in ancient times, which have
long since been converted into artificial lakes
or suffered to become mere drains. The Lea
is a contributory from Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire, fed in its course by numerous
springs, and by storm-waters from several
rivulets. It is fairly certain that the Lea once
flowed with a more powerful stream, and was
a good natural water-way along the entire
eastern boundary of Middlesex.
There has been a good deal of vicissitude
in the process of bridging the Thames. Before the present fine bridge at Staines was
built there was a succession of failures. A
bridge existed here in very ancient days.
There is repeated mention of a bridge at
Staines in old records. The wooden one
existing towards the end of the 18th century
was at last condemned, and an Act of Parliament obtained for rebuilding. A stone bridge
was forthwith put in hand, and opened for
traffic in 1797. But this was found to be
insecure, and it had to be taken down. A
cast-iron bridge followed, and in its turn
failed. A third attempt was made, with a low
arch of cast iron supported on wooden piles;
but this in turn was at length condemned.
George Rennie then undertook the construction, and the result was the handsome bridge
now standing. It was opened in 1832, with
much state, the ceremony being attended by
William IV and his queen.
Chertsey Bridge is a substantial structure in
stone, opened in 1785. It is hardly equal to
modern needs, with the increased speed and
size of modern traffic. A bridge was raised at
Walton, an eccentric-looking structure in wood
and brick, which required alteration and repair
from time to time. The central arch fell in
1859, and a new bridge was opened in 1863, a
rather ugly but more convenient structure.
Hampton Court Bridge was built in 1865, in
place of a wooden structure erected in 1750.
Kingston Bridge is one of the handsomest on
the river. It replaced a wooden one several
centuries old, and was opened in 1828. This
bridge now has a strain on its accommodation, and is fated to be altered if not entirely
superseded. On account of the busy population in and around the town, Richmond
Bridge is likewise becoming inadequate to the
wants of the neighbourhood. It was built in the
year 1777. Half a mile lower down is the footbridge and lock, opened 19 May 1894. The
shallowness of the stream hereabouts prompted
a design which should hold up the tide at
half-ebb, and always provide sufficient water
for navigation. The plan was quite successful, and added a new triumph to the arts of
modern bridge-building.
The new bridge at Kew, inaugurated
by King Edward VII in 1905, is a great
ornament to the river, and an immense
improvement upon the old one of 1789.
That was of stone and brick, but it became
unfit for modern usage. The next bridge
is at Hammersmith, on the suspension principle, opened in 1827. It has served its purpose, and is highly attractive in appearance;
but it is destined to make room for a heavier
structure, in view of modern needs. Fulham
Bridge is a very fine modern one, suitable to
the needs of an immense traffic. It was completed in 1885, replacing one of quaint-looking appearance which dated from 1729. At
Wandsworth an iron lattice bridge was opened
in 1873. Battersea Bridge is one of the best
and handsomest on the river, raised in place
of an old wooden structure dating back two
centuries and a half. Below this are two
handsome suspension bridges, which were
rendered necessary by the extension of London
suburbs on this side.
The new Vauxhall Bridge, opened in 1906,
represents all that is complete in modern bridgebuilding, being spacious, elegant, and substantial, yet less expensive than its predecessor,
which cost nearly £300,000. This older
bridge had lasted only from the year 1816.
The suspension bridge at Lambeth was opened
in 1862, but is already considered defective as
far as concerns the upper works. The splendid iron bridge at Westminster was opened in
1860-2 after a long period of obstruction of
the water-way by its half-ruined predecessor
of 1750. This latter had been injured at the
foundations through the increased scour of
the river caused chiefly by the demolition of
old London Bridge. Near Charing Cross a
suspension-bridge was raised in 1842, named
after Hungerford Market, which has since
been superseded by a railway bridge with
accompanying footway. Waterloo Bridge is
still in some respects one of the finest in the
world, and was built some two years after the
date of the celebrated battle.
The remaining bridges are in London
proper. The Blackfriars Bridge of 1760 was
an excellent work; but it suffered like its
neighbour from the stronger scour of recent
years. Its successor was finished in 1869,
and has lately been widened to provide tramway accommodation. Southwark Bridge was
built 1813-19. (fn. 9) The new London Bridge
is slightly to the west of the site of a
wooden structure of Saxon times, which
had several successors. The first stone was
laid in 1825. Half a million pounds were
expended on the work, which was finished in
1831 and opened in state by William IV.
The congestion of traffic was relieved in 1904
by widening the bridge to allow of four lines
of vehicles, the centre being reserved for light
carts and passenger conveyances. Finally,
the Tower Bridge, one of the great triumphs
of modern engineering, was completed in 1894.
The natural water supply of Middlesex is
copious. Some parts of the county are better
served than others. Until the invention of
artesian wells, there was both difficulty and expense in reaching water, because of the thick
deposit of clay beneath the surface. The
numerous springs which rise from northern
declivities supply every district of the county.
When these rivulets failed from drought, it was
formerly of great concern to have deep wells
for occasional supply. But well-sinking was
a serious affair in the London Clay. There
is record of a well at Paddington, where the
workmen had to go to a depth of 300 ft.
before reaching water. Another well at
Holloway, dug early in the 19th century,
required an excavation of 172 ft. It is matter
of wonder that a system of storage was never
resorted to. At Ruislip, and at the head
waters of the Brent, near Hendon, are large
reservoirs which were provided for the wants
of the Canal Company. Similar constructions,
for domestic and other purposes, might have
been of immense utility in some districts.
Doubtless the question of initial expense hindered resort to this sort of economy.
In selecting for detailed treatment the more
prominent industries, due weight has been
given to the following among other considerations:-(1) The importance of the industry from its national character; (2) its
historical interest; (3) its first appearance in
this country; and (4) its being principally
carried on in Middlesex. But a number of
trades, some of which merit more attention,
must for lack of room be allowed only a
cursory notice in this introduction.
It may be convenient to turn our attention
in the first place to the trades of East London
and Hackney, where the proportion of the
population engaged in manufacturing industries
is exceptionally large. It shows a percentage
of 39.95, whilst that of all London is 28.38,
and that of the whole of England 307. Out
of this army of workers we shall treat here
principally of those engaged in home occupations.
Tailoring is one of the chief industries, and
is carried on in some 900 workshops of Jewish
contractors, and by home workers both for
West End and City firms. 'The Jewish
coat-making industry is practically concentrated within an area of less than one square
mile, comprising the whole of Whitechapel, a
small piece of Mile End, and a part of St.
George's-in-the-East.' (fn. 10) Here is congregated
a compact Jewish community of from 30,000
to 40,000 persons of all nationalities. Yiddish
is the language of the streets, and Hebrew
announcements are everywhere to be seen.
The work of the English journeyman cannot
be equalled, but the conditions of his home
workshop are too often deplorable. Excellent
work is also produced in the Jewish workshop,
together with inferior work of every grade
down to the 'slops' manufactured for the
export trade. The existence of the lowest
trade is dependent on the presence of a class
of workers such as Jews and women, with an
indefinitely low standard of life. Domestic
workshops are most numerous in the eastern
portion of Mile End Old Town; Stepney and
Poplar are the centres of the slop, trouser, and
juvenile trade.
In point of numbers, bootmaking is an
equally important East End industry, and is
rapidly growing in extent, especially in the
districts of Shoreditch and Bethnal Green,
where it gives occupation to a considerable
fraction of the population. (fn. 11) Under the old
system of bootmaking, the various workmen
engaged for bespoke work were the last-maker,
the clicker, who cut out the material for the
'uppers,' the closer, who sewed the upper or
top portion, and the maker, who fitted on the
sole or heel. Last-making is now almost a
separate business, and it is becoming increasingly
the custom to make uppers in a factory in
wholesale quantity. In the hand-made bespoke work, the labour of the closer was largely
done in the home, generally with the help of
the wife and daughters of the family. Since
the introduction of sewing-machines, many
closers have left the trade and no one is learning it. The machine-made bespoke work is
constructed with ready-made uppers from the
provinces, and completed by makers working, at
home or in associated workshops, on the fitted
last. In the ready-made wholesale trade the
organization is more complex, as cheapness is
an indispensable element. A complete machinesewn boot passes through the hands of twenty
different workers. The work of clickers and
rough-stuff cutters is usually done in the
factory in London, whilst lasters, closers, and
sole-sewers are out-workers. The manufactories in London vary considerably in extent.
There are the large makers who turn out
10,000 and more pairs a week, and the chamber-masters who chiefly employ members of
their own family and whose weekly output is
limited to a few gross. Then we reach the
lowest level, that of the owner of a couple of
rooms, who cuts his uppers, gets his wife and
daughter to close them, and lasts and finishes
the boots himself. Owing principally to the
conditions resulting from the restrictions imposed by the Trade Union wage-standard, the
work is being driven from London to Northampton.
Shirt-making is largely carried on by women
in East London; both shirts and underclothing
requiring good handiwork are made in several
middle-class London suburbs. The shirt machinists who take work home belong to various
grades of the social scale. Many are widows
who are partly assisted by their relatives or by
the parish. Some are young ladies who work
for pocket money for a mere trifle, and so lower
the standard of payment. Other causes of
low wages are incapacity (many of the workers
being feeble or inexperienced), sub-contract,
and the indifference to the quality of work on
the part of the consumer. Tie-making is
carried on partly in factories and partly in the
home. There is much sub-contracting, and
prices paid for labour greatly vary, although the
rate of payment is higher than that for shirts.
In umbrella-making, the covers and the
frames are made in factories, and are then
put together in dozens and given out to the
home-workers. There are also small umbrellamakers in the East End who supply shops in
the neighbourhood; they buy sticks and frames,
and their families are all employed in the actual
umbrella manufacture.
Corsets and stays are principally made in
provincial towns, but there are a few factories
in the East End. Several small stay-makers
have workshops of their own, employing a few
hands besides the members of their families,
and a few hundred women do work at home
for the factories.
The fur-trade is, with very few exceptions,
in Jewish hands, both in the City and in the
East End. The City furriers have part of the
work done at their own warehouses; but most
of them give out the sewing to be done by
home-workers. The fur-sewing is most disagreeable and unhealthy, besides being the
worst paid of any industry carried on in East
London workshops.
The box-making industry gives employment
largely to women. Fancy boxes are made
almost entirely on the premises of the manufacturer, but much of the work in plain boxes
is done by out-door hands at home. The cardboard is cut by men, and then made up by
women and girls. Skill is required; and a
girl does not become a good hand at plain
work under two years, whilst for fancy work
three years' training is required. Matchbox
making requires no previous training, and is
the lowest in the scale of the industries of the
poor. It is the last resort of the destitute, and
the employment of children of the earliest age.
A child can earn 1d. an hour, and few women
can earn more than 1¾d. an hour.
Brush-making is carried on principally in factories, very few of which give out work. The
work is fairly regular, and requires a combination of skill and honesty. The lighter parts
of the work are performed by women, and
shorter hours on the whole prevail in this
trade than in most others.
Match-making is a notable industry of East
London, in which over one thousand women
and girls are employed. The match girls have
successfully combined to promote their interests, and make each other's cause their own.
They form clubs among themselves for buying
clothes and feathers, seven or eight paying 1s.
a week, and drawing lots to decide who shall
have the money each week. Their prolonged
strike in July 1888 resulted in the formation
of a Trade Union, the largest in England composed of women and girls. By improvements
in the manufacture, the quantity of phosphorus
employed has been very greatly reduced, and a
considerable diminution in the terrible disease
necrosis has consequently resulted.
In the confectionery factories, the manufacture of jam, preserves, pickles, and even sweets,
is in greater part performed by men, women
only being employed for labelling, packing, &c.
The employment is of an irregular kind, only a
certain number of the better hands being kept
on permanently.
Among other industries which deserve more
than a passing notice is that of cap-making.
Here the factory system is driving the small
workshops out of the field. The largest factory employs 600 girls, and the work is very
laborious, although fairly well paid.
Artificial flowers are made in Hoxton and De
Beauvoir Town, as well as by a few workers in
the East End. This is a season trade, and subject
also to much irregularity from the caprices of
fashion.
Feather-curling, although fluctuating with
changes of fashion, gives fairly regular employment to a large number of girls in East and
North-East London.
The industries which supply man's everyday wants have the same characteristics more
or less in every locality. Among beverages,
the manufacture of aerated and mineral waters
is carried on by many firms such as Perrier,
Idris & Co., Schweppes Ltd., and John G.
Webb & Co.
Turning to solid food it is a noticeable
feature of the present day that the wants of
residents and visitors of all classes of society
were never so well provided for as by the
various hotels, restaurants, bread and dairy
companies, and people's cafes which now
abound. In this great improvement the metropolis has certainly led the way. Of sauce
and pickle manufacturers there are two wellknown firms in Middlesex, John Burgess and
Son, and Crosse & Blackwell. In its vinegar
works the metropolis until lately took the lead,
and among the principal firms were those
of Champion & Co., in Old Street, and Henry
Sarson and Sons, City Road.
Middlesex was formerly noted for its extensive distilleries; the duty paid by English distilleries for the year ending 5 January 1833 was
£1,420,525 10s., which was nearly £100,000
above that paid in Scotland, but below that in
Ireland. (fn. 12) Of the total duty paid in England,
two firms in the metropolis contributed together more than one-fourth, viz., O. H.
Smith and R. Carrington of Thames Bank
£201,287 5s., and T. and G. Smith of
Whitechapel £207,559 2s.6d. This industry
is still extensively carried on in Middlesex, but
almost wholly within the metropolitan district.
There are maltsters at Brentford, Chiswick,
Isleworth, Staines, and many other localities.
Malting seems to have been carried on at Enfield to a considerable extent at an early period.
In the latter half of the 15th century it is recorded (fn. 13) that John Hunnesdon of 'Endefeld'
sought to recover £8 13s. 10d. from Robert
Trott of Southwark, brewer, who 'hath used
wekely to bye malt by the space of many yeres
of your seid besecher,' and who it seems never
settled in full for the same. 'At some tyme
ther hath remayned unpayed for 2 or 3 quarters
of malt, at som tyme 4 or 5, at som tyme mor,'
until at length Hunnesdon's patience was exhausted. Other Middlesex maltsters (of the
same period) of whom record exists are William
Hall of 'Endfeld,' (fn. 14) Henry Wynn of Enfield, (fn. 15)
and William Barley of 'Enffelde.' (fn. 16)
Hat-making was formerly a great Middlesex
industry, but has of late years shrunk to very
small proportions in the metropolis. The
manufacture of felt hats was introduced early
in the reign of Henry VIII; while in 1530
letters of denization were granted to Martin
Johnson from Guelders, (fn. 17) 'strawen hat maker,
otherwise splyter hat maker.'
Norden mentions a copper and brass mill
at Isleworth between that place and Horton,
where the metal was wrought, melted, and
forged from ore which came from Somerset.
'Manie artificiall deuises,' he says, 'are there
to be noted in the performance of the
worke.' (fn. 18) These works formed the subject
of a lengthy dispute between John Brode and
Sir Richard Martin, Lord Mayor of London
in 1593, which came before the Privy Council
in 1596. (fn. 19) The manufacture carried on was
that of 'lattin and battry,' the metals being
produced chiefly in an unwrought state,
although the term 'battry' was usually applied to brass or copper vessels and chiefly
those for culinary and table use. Brode in
his petition states that the metal was procured
from a mixture of copper and calamine ore by
a process employed by one Christopher Shutz,
who had 'great cunning and experience' in
its use. In 1565 Shutz, with a partner,
William Humphrey, obtained an exclusive
licence to search, dig for, and use calamine
stone. These partners, as Brode alleged,
although they brought over divers strangers,
did not bring anything to pass, 'and so gave
yt over as not fecible.' The project then, he
says, continued without hope for nineteen
years, when he in partnership with others
leased the privilege for fourteen years at a
yearly rent of £50. During the period of
his lease his expenditure upon the works at
Isleworth had amounted to £3,500, and he
claimed to have brought the undertaking by
his study and labour to a state of perfection.
He is now (1596) threatened with forfeiture of
his lease and seizure of his 'stuffe and tooles'
for non-payment of rent. He prays that his
tools and metal may not be seized, as he is
willing and able to pay, and not personally
defaulting; he is equally prepared to buy
out his partners or that they should buy him
out. Sir Richard Martin in his reply states
that he, Andrew Palmer, and Humphrey
Michell, were persuaded to become Brode's
partners by his statement that he could perfectly produce 'commixed copper,' and that
it would bring in £1,000 a year. The alderman then agreed to defray the charges of the
first year, amounting to about £3,000, and
each of the other partners contributed £800,
so that Brode's statement that he had paid
£3,500 was not true. Brode was allowed
by the partners £50 a year to direct the
works, but this he must have taken out of
capital, as no profit was made. He would not
divulge the secret (if it existed) either to his
partners or to the Mines Corporation, although
that company offered him and Palmer on such
condition a further lease of seven years. Shutz
and Humphrey's 'privilege' had meanwhile
been acquired by the Mines Corporation.
Brode in his rejoinder gives some curious
information about the works. He asserts
that Shutz and Humphrey did not succeed in
perfecting their discovery, although they had
from 20 to 30 tons of calamine stone from
Worle Hill in Somerset conveyed to Tintern
Abbey, where it was experimented upon without success by one Hinckins, a stranger whom
they employed. He denies Sir Richard's
account of the financial side of the transactions, and reaffirms his previous statement.
The co-partners employed one John Dickson,
coppersmith of London, to 'melte and batter
out 20,000 wt. of copper and make it into
plates and make the same malleable.' Dickson
failed, but he the said Brode performed the
task, and also refined 43 tons of Barbary copper,
and brought it into plates, 'an act perfected
never before by any Englishman.' About
eight years since, Sir Richard Martin and
Michell withdrew from the partnership and
received the whole of their stock back again
and £238 more in copper, plates, and kettles.
The 'lattin' works were also attempted, but
nothing brought to pass; by expending his
own money Brode has brought these to perfection. On 17 April 1596 the Mineral and
Battry Company petitioned Lord Burghley (fn. 20)
to order Brode to supply their new lessees
with materials at reasonable rates. They
state that the patent granted in 7 Elizabeth to
Shutz and Humphrey was for making 'lattyn,
battrye, castworke, and wyre.' In 10
Elizabeth the patent was acquired by their
company then incorporated, which consisted
of thirty-six shareholders, among whom were
the Duke of Norfolk, the Lord Treasurer,
Lord Cobham, and others. The company
pursued the work for a time, and then took
up wire-work and other work under another
patent. In 24 Elizabeth they granted a lease
of their battery works for 150 years at £50
a year to John Brode and his partners, who
built the works at Isleworth, Brode having
sole management with £50 a year for his
pains. Brode caused great loss to his partners,
refused to divulge his secret, and now refused
to pay the rent. The company then by judicial
order made his lease void, and granted a new
lease of twenty-one years to others at £100
rent for the first year and £400 yearly after.
They conclude by stating that Brode has
secured the supply of calamine and will not
supply it to the new lessees. The petition is
signed by Sir Julius Caesar, Sir Richard
Martin, Thomas Caesar, William Bond,
Richard Martin, jnr., and others. The company and Sir Richard Martin were also in
controversy in 1596 with Richard Hanbery
and Edmund Wheler. (fn. 21) How these disputes
ended does not appear. Lysons wrote in
1795, (fn. 22) 'these copper-mills still exist, being
situated at Baberbridge; they belong to the
Duke of Northumberland, and are rented by
the incorporated Society of the Mines Royal.'
Although cutlery as a trade has long since
left the metropolis, the making of surgical
instruments is a branch which still continues
to flourish in this county, and to produce
some highly-skilled workmen. Among the
principal Middlesex firms are Down Bros.,
Ltd., St. Thomas's Street, S.E.; Allen and
Hanbury's, Ltd., Wigmore Street; and John
Weiss & Son, Ltd., now of Oxford Street, but
originally established in the Strand in 1787.
In its highest and most costly form goldsmiths' and silversmiths' work is largely carried
on in Middlesex by firms of high standing.
Soap-manufacture is an old established
Middlesex industry. From the report of the
Excise Commissioners for 1835 (fn. 23) it appears
that whilst the total amount of duty paid for
all England was £1,418,832 4s., fifty-five
firms in London contributed no less a portion
than £378,175 13s. 6¼d. Ten of these firms
paid over £10,000 each. One of the oldest
firms in Middlesex is that of D. & W. Gibbs,
Ltd., whose premises, known as the City Soap
Works, are in Wapping. The business was
established in 1712, and was subsequently acquired by David Gibbs, whose grandsons are
now directors of the company. Until 1889 the
manufactory was in Milton Street, Cripplegate;
but that building being destroyed by fire, the
firm purchased the business of Paton and
Charles at Wapping together with that of
Sharp Brothers. The works cover 2½ acres
of ground, and employ 200 hands, excluding
the clerical and travelling staff, numbering
about fifty. The firm holds patents for many
specialities in soap. Other important Middlesex firms are A. F. Pears & Co., who have
large works at Isleworth; Osborne Bauer and
Cheseman of Golden Square; and T. D.
Rowe & Co., and Wylie & Co., both of
Brentford.
Although the London streets have much
improved in cleanliness, the art of the
shoe-black has long been a necessity, and
blacking has always been an important Middlesex industry, the firm of Day and Martin
being one of its chief representatives.
In the metropolis, with its concentration of
public and private boards and institutions, its
ever-increasing population, and the rebuilding
and repairs of existing property, there is always
so much work for builders that the building
trade is one of the most important of its industrial groups. Brick and tile-making is extensively carried on, more especially on the
outer fringe of the London districts. It seems
probable that bricks and coarse tiles have been
made in Middlesex from an early period.
Late in the 15th century we hear of John
Maier and Agnes his wife making tiles for
William Code of Harlesden Green at the rate
of 11d. per 1,000. (fn. 24)
There are floorcloth and linoleum factories
at Staines (Linoleum Manufacturing Co.), Edmonton (Ridley, Whitley & Co.), and Ponders
End (Corticene Floor Covering Co.).
Ever since Robert Barron of Hoxton took
out a patent (fn. 25) for a lock 'far more secure than
any hitherto made,' the locksmiths and safemakers of Middlesex have done their best to
provide secure keeping for the great wealth of
the metropolis. Some of the principal firms
in Middlesex are Bramah & Co., New Bond
Street; C. H. Griffiths & Sons, Bethnal
Green; Ratner Safe Co., Ltd., Bromley-byBow; and John Tann, Old Ford.
London being distant from the coalfields,
manufactures in iron are carried on to a small
extent only. Copper is worked largely in
Middlesex, and so is lead; both metals being
so malleable and ductile that their manufacture
can be effected with much less heat than iron
requires. The extensive lead-smelting works
of the old firm, Locke, Lancaster and Johnson & Sons, Ltd., are situated at Poplar,
Limehouse, and Millwall.
Gas-tar works form an important feature of
the East London Industries. The works of
Messrs. Burt, Boulton, and Haywood for the
distillation of gas-tar occupied in 1876 about
17 acres at Prince Regent's Wharf, Silvertown;
and another 2 acres at Millwall. Gas tar
produces by distillation four valuable substances: naphtha, creosote oil, anthracene, and
pitch. But still more valuable products are
the series of aniline dyes, the discovery of
which forms one of the greatest triumphs of
modern chemistry. In another department
of these large works the making of creosote
railway sleepers was carried on upon an extensive scale. (fn. 26)
Many leading firms of manufacturing
chemists have extensive works in Middlesex.
At Southall are the premises of W. Houlder,
Son & Co.; at Poplar are F. Allen & Sons; at
Ponder's End, T. Morson & Son; at Hounslow, Parke, Davis & Co.; at West Drayton,
Alfred White & Sons; in the City Road,
Stafford Allen & Sons; at Limehouse, Chapman & Messel; and at Hackney Wick, W. C.
Barnes & Co., Ltd., and E. Beanes & Co. At
the works of Carless, Capel & Leonard, at
Hackney Wick, the various products of petroleum are manufactured on a large scale, and
oil-refining is well represented by Fenner,
Alder & Co. of Millwall; Hubbuck & Co. of
Ratcliff; and the Union Oil and Cake Mills at
Limehouse. Compressed and liquid gases are
produced by Coxeter & Son at Seaton Street,
N.W.; and the British Oxygen Company
manufacture oxygen at Westminster.
Paint, colour, and varnish manufacturers
are represented by D. Anderson & Son of Old
Ford, and Denton & Jutsum of Bow Common;
Louis Berger & Son of Homerton, and Duggan,
Neel, & McColm, Ltd., of Millwall. Of
makers of electrical appliances we can only
mention the Jandus Arc Lamp and Electrical
Company, of Holloway. Among the drug
manufacturers are Allen & Hanbury of
Bethnal Green, and Burgoyne & Burbidges
of Mile End New Town. The manufacture
of perfumery is represented by Hovenden &
Sons of City Road, and W. J. Bush & Co.
of Hackney. That of celluloid is carried on
by Frederick Hill & Co., at Kingsland.
There are extensive powder-mills in the
parish of Twickenham, 2 miles from Hounslow, generally known as the Hounslow Powder
Mills; also at East Bedfont.
Among the decayed industries of Middlesex is that of sugar-refining, which at one
time was an important trade in the east of
London. We learn from Stow that 'about
the year 1544 refining of sugar was first used
in England. Then there were but two sugarhouses; and their profit was but very little, by
reason there were so many sugar bakers in
Antwerp, and sugar came from thence
better cheap than it could be afforded at
London; and for the space of twenty years
together those two sugar-houses served the
whole realm, both to the commendation and
profit of them that undertook the same.' (fn. 27)
Sugar undergoes but little manufacture after
it reaches our shores. The business of the
sugar refiner, or sugar baker as he has been
wrongly termed, is that of preparing from the
common brown 'moist' the white conical
lumps or loaves of crystallized sugar, familiarly
known as lump sugar. This used to be
carried on in the neighbourhood of Goodman's
Fields, the factories being congregated within
a circle of half-a-mile radius immediately eastward of Aldgate. (fn. 28) The chief supply of English sugar came formerly from the West
Indies, where the sugar-cane was cultivated to
a vast extent. Its preparation for shipment
involved three stages: it was first a juice expressed from the cane, then a syrup from
which the impurities had been removed, and
lastly a brown granulated substance from
which a considerable portion of molasses or
uncrystallizable sugar had been separated. The
ponderous hogsheads which used to be seen
forty or fifty years ago outside the shops of
the retail grocers contained moist sugar, somewhat resembling that imported by the refiner,
but with a finer and softer grain. This sugar,
well known to the housewife in those days as
'sevenpenny or eightpenny moist,' had various
shades of brown colour, according to its
quality. This was caused by the presence of
molasses to a greater or less extent, but the
sugar was largely consumed in the condition
in which it arrived from the producing country,
this being possible, and even pleasant, with
the sweet and fragrant cane muscavadoes.
Loaf sugar (which was a luxury in the fifties,
even to the middle classes) and other sugars
of fine quality were obtained by purifying
still further the sugar of commerce, the object
of the refiner being to expel the molasses
together with other impurities which still remained in the sugar as imported. The
factories for sugar refining were of special construction, the chief object being to obtain a
large extent of flooring. Hence the buildings
were lofty, containing a large number of
stories, and being lighted by numerous small
windows. The interior presented a peculiar
appearance arising from the small height of
the rooms compared with their great extent.
As a precaution against fire, rendered necessary
by the inflammable nature of sugar, the refineries were largely constructed of iron, stone,
and brick. The great increase in the use of
beetroot sugar made no difference to the
operations of the refiner. The hogsheads of
sugar or the bags of beet were emptied on an
upper floor, and then discharged in shoots to
a lower floor to be melted in the 'blow-ups';
these were cast-iron tanks fitted with mechanical stirrers and steam pipes for heating
the water. The solution, called 'liquor,' was
brought to a certain degree of gravity (25 to
33 deg. Baumé) and then filtered through twilled
cotton bags, encased in a meshing of hemp.
The syrup was next decolorized by being
passed through beds of animal charcoal, inclosed in cisterns to a depth of from 30 ft. to
50 ft., the sugar being then discharged into
tanks. It was then boiled in vacuum pans,
and variously treated afterwards according to
the nature of the finished sugar required. To
make sugar loaves, small crystals only were
formed in the pan, and the granular magma
was poured into steam-jacketed open pans,
and raised to a temperature of about 180 to
190 deg. Fahr., which liquefied the grains.
The hot solution was then cast into conical
moulds of the shape of the loaves, where it
crystallized into a solid mass. A plug at the
bottom of the mould was then opened to
allow the syrup containing coloured and other
impurities to drain away. This process was
assisted by pouring into the cone successive
doses of saturated syrup, ending with a syrup
of pure colourless sugar. The syrup which
drained from the loaves was sold as golden
syrup; the liquor which obstinately remained
in the interstices being driven out by suction
or centrifugal action; the loaf was then
rounded off, papered, and placed in a stove for
drying.
The art of dyeing textile fabrics and
leather had been practised from an early
period in different parts of England, and
much woad from Toulouse, and madder and
scarlet dye from Italy, were imported by
Florentine and Genoese merchants. So great,
however, was the skill of the Continental
dyers that much English cloth was from the
14th to the 16th century sent abroad to be
dyed and finished. During the Tudor and
Stuart periods improved methods of dyeing
were introduced into this country. John
Baptist Semyn, (fn. 29) a Genoese dwelling in
Southwark, the king's dyer, was made a
denizen in 1533. In the same reign several
foreign leather dyers settled in or near
London, and James Tybault, who took out
letters of denization in 1544, describes himself as 'a leather dyer after the Spanish dyeing.' He had been then eighteen years in
England. In 1561 Stiata Cavalcaunti, a
Florentine, obtained a licence to be the sole
importer of indigo into England, where it
was then apparently unknown as a dyeing
agent, though it had been employed at a
much earlier time in Italy. It did not, however, come into general use, and was quite a
novelty in England sixteen years later. (fn. 30) In
1567 Peter de Croix (fn. 31) offered to set up the
'feate of dying and dressing of clothis after
the manna of Flaunders.' In a return of
aliens (fn. 32) in 1568 he is described as a Frenchman 'who goeth to the Frentche church,'
while in a house crowded with refugees in St.
Magnus parish we hear of 'Francis Tybbold
dyer, borne in Ipar, in Flanders, and goeth to
the Dutch churche; he paith no rent.' With
the immigration of Protestant refugees foreign
dyers of silk, leather, and cloth increased in
numbers in and about the city of London;
but the most important enterprise undertaken
by a dyer of foreign origin belongs to the
next century when Dr. Johannes Sibertus
Kuffler of Leyden, who had married a
daughter of the famous Dutch chemist
Drebbel, set up a scarlet-dye house at Bow,
probably putting to practical use improved
methods learnt from his father-in-law. The
scarlet he obtained soon became known as
'Bow dye.' Further improvements in dyeing cloth were made by Bauer, a Fleming
who came to England in 1667. (fn. 33)
Gun-making and the manufacture of small
arms is an important industry of the county.
The Royal Small Arms Factory at Enfield
was built in 1855-6 at a cost of £150,000;
and has a station (Enfield Lock) on the Great
Eastern Railway. The buildings form three
sides of a quadrangle, and, with the testing
ranges, cover an area of about 5 acres. The
new magazine rifle is now made instead of
the Martini-Henri, and machine-guns and
swords are also manufactured. About four
thousand rifles can be turned out weekly. At
Edmonton are the ammunition works of Ely
Brothers, Ltd. This industry is under the
control of the Gunmakers' Company, the only
livery company whose hall is situated outside
the boundaries of the City of London. As
compared with the majority of City gilds the
Gunmakers' Company is quite a modern institution, not having been incorporated until
the reign of Charles I. Under the charter of
this sovereign, dated 14 March 1637, power
was given to the company to prove and mark
all gun-barrels made in London, which the
makers were obliged to bring to the company's
proof-house for such purpose. The authority
of the company over the trade was confirmed
by the Act of 53 George III, cap. 115,
(1813), and by subsequent amending statutes.
The last of these Acts, under which the
company now exercises its powers, was passed
in 1868, 31-2 Victoria, cap. 113. The
proof-house is in Commercial Road East, and
serves the company for the purposes of a hall.
In one of the principal apartments is a fine
trophy of arms. Apart from its trade duties
and privileges the company exercises all the
functions of an ordinary livery company. It
is governed by a master and two wardens,
chosen annually from the members of the
court of assistants, and has a clerk, proofmaster, beadle, and other officials. The company, in common with the other City gilds,
makes liberal grants from its income to pensioners and general philanthropic objects.
The Thames near the metropolis was once
the seat of a flourishing trade in shipbuilding,
which has now almost become extinct. In
April 1594 Peter Hills of Redrith (Rotherhithe) received a tally for 431 crowns, value
5s. each, as the queen's gift towards his
charges in building three new ships. (fn. 34) The
number of shipwrights employed in the
metropolis shows a rapid decrease in the census
returns. The number in 1861 was 8,300;
in 1871, 6,200; in 1881, 5,300; and in
1891, 2,300; this last return being little
more than one-fourth of those counted in
1861. (fn. 35) The finest vessels in the East India
trade were made in the Thames shipbuilding
yards, but this valuable industry is being gradually lost to the metropolis. In August 1907
it was announced that Yarrow's yard at Millwall would be entirely closed within twelve
months, and the business removed to Scotstoun
on the Clyde. (fn. 36) This well-known firm of
marine and mechanical engineers was established in 1864, and their premises at Poplar
covered 12 acres of ground at the river side.
Here they had given employment to hundreds of artisans in East London during the
last fifty years. Their speciality was torpedo
boats, torpedo-boat destroyers, vessels of shallow draught for military and trading purposes, and the 'Yarrow' water-tube boilers.
They especially succeeded in the construction
of high-speed naval craft, which they supplied
both to the British and to foreign governments. The firm was incorporated as a
limited company in 1897. Another wellknown firm of shipbuilders below bridge is
the Thames Iron Works, whose extensive
premises are at Canning Town, on the side of
the River Lea. At Chiswick there are the
large engineering and steam-launch building works of Thorneycroft & Co., equally
famous with Searle & Sons, their old competitors on the Surrey shore.
The control of all Middlesex industries
within a radius varying from three to ten or
more miles from the metropolis lay, in former
times, with the City authorities ultimately,
and more directly with the companies controlling the various trades. This authority
still exists in some industries-the goldsmiths
and stationers, for example. But it fell generally into disuse towards the close of the 18th
century.