The disputes in the industry were not so much over the actual introduction of machinery as over

the way in which that machinery was to be used. The only way in which the workers could
protect themselves from being driven to produce more for the same payment was deliberately to
restrict output on the new machines, and the union imposed fines of 2s. 6d. to £1 if a certain
output was exceeded. (fn. 125) (fn. 126) The employers' principal journal stated: 'The spirit of
comradeship is carried to a ridiculous extent. . . . It seems to be a settled policy with the men, not
to earn as much money as possible per week, but as much as possible per job, in other words to
keep the cost of production running as high as possible.' (fn. 127) One of the more enlightened
employers suggested that if the piecework system were adopted and only expert men employed
on the machines, the result would be better work and lower costs for the employers and higher
wages for the operatives. (fn. 128)

Among the grievances connected with the new machinery was the practice of 'basket work', the
sending out of work to country villages, where labour was cheaper, or to another town. (fn. 129)
The union's policy was to insist that the agreed wages be paid to such outworkers, and that
factories should be set up in the country districts, a policy designed to bring together the
unorganized country workers and so strengthen the union's position. The union also objected to
the substitution of labour by unskilled juniors for that of skilled adults, which led to the flooding
of the labour market with boys. (fn. 130) It asked for a limitation of one boy to each five men
employed. (fn. 131)

The manufacturers, on the other hand, were anxious to exploit the advantages of machine
production because they found themselves being beaten by the technically superior American
factories, whose products were successfully competing in established British markets. They also
objected to the union's demand for a minimum wage on the grounds that productivity would be
lowered. The system of arbitration which should have settled these disputes broke down when
trade became bad in the early 1890's. Between 1891 and 1894 seven local arbitration boards were
dissolved. (fn. 132) The men objected to their slowness, while the employers were also
dissatisfied because of the time taken to ensure that they were not committed to some new
principle. They had intended the boards to deal with questions of interpretation only, not to be a
market in which new bargains might be struck. The question of increased wages could not be
brought up every two months at these boards. The National Conference met five times between
1892 and 1894 to settle wage claims, and to consider the demands of other centres for indoor
working by all employees: in 1891 Leicester led the way in this, the employers agreeing by 137
to 3 to confirm this principle on the understanding that no manufacturer should be omitted from
the agreed rules. (fn. 133) (fn. 134)

By the early 1890's, then, the union was in a powerful position: at that time it was the fourth
largest union in Britain. The manufacturers resented its growing power and especially what they
considered to be its unwarrantable interference in the internal organization of their factories. (fn.
135) Their attack began in November 1894 with their submission of seven proposals which the
union had either to accept or reject within eleven days. This ultimatum, which came to be known
as the 'Seven Commandments', included the proposals that wage-rates should not be changed at
intervals of less than two years, that the introduction of piecework in lasting and finishing should
be indefinitely delayed, that the internal management of the factories was the function of the
employers alone, and that the union should impose no restriction on output. The union delayed
its reply until the end of January 1895, when it rejected the proposals as 'illegal, unjust,
unworkable, and therefore impracticable', but suggested that the proposals should be subjected to
arbitration. In the meantime the employers had withdrawn from the National Conference and
they now refused the union's proposal. The union maintained that a strike was inevitable, and
began preparations by levying 1s. a week on its members. After big meetings had been held by
the operatives, like the one at Leicester on 30 January 1895 which was attended by about 5,000
union members, the union put in notices to three firms in Northampton and six in Leicester
demanding minimum wages of 28s. a week for clickers and 26s. for pressmen, increases of 2s.
6d. and 3s. per week respectively. (fn. 136) In addition, the Leicester branch of the union put a
motion to the local board, 'that this board decides that all work cut in Leicester shall be made and
finished in Leicester, and paid for in accordance with the prices and conditions at present
prevailing in Leicester'. These requests were met by a general lockout which began on 6 March.
(fn. 137)

The actual stoppage, then, came on side issues of minor importance. (fn. 138) The clickers and
pressmen in the Midlands had only recently been drawn into the N.U.B.S.O. which, according to
the spokesman of a rival union, the National Union of Bootclickers, whose members, 1,650 in
1892, belonged mainly to London and district, was doing nothing for them so that many were
gradually leaving. (fn. 139) Possibly the union wished to show that it could still do something for
them: the clickers at any rate were craftsmen as yet little affected by machines. It perhaps also
wished to ensure their solidarity with the older members in the event of a strike. The lockout
lasted three weeks. For the firms outside the association trade remained brisk and work plentiful,
but three-quarters of the shoe factories in the Leicester district were closed both to union and
non-union labour. A local estimate of the numbers out of work at the peak of the dispute was
22,000. (fn. 140) The affair cost the union £56,383 in strike pay, of which £16,979, or some 30
per cent. of the total, was laid out in Leicester. (fn. 141) A sum of £1,049 was subscribed by
various friends and by other unions. (fn. 142)

A settlement was finally reached which has regulated labour conditions in the industry ever
since. The 'Terms of Settlement' laid down that piecework in the industry was undesirable, that
the local boards of arbitration were to be reconstituted with revised regulations, that certain
subjects were to be outside the jurisdiction of these boards, and that a financial guarantee that the
agreement would be honoured was to be arranged. (fn. 143)

No provision was made for the National Conference, but by joint consent it was re-established
and took place every two years, its functions clearly being to deal with questions of principle
which could only be raised there. The local boards were confined to matters of interpretation and
purely local affairs. The immediate solution of local grievances, before they can spread or
accumulate, has contributed much to the success of the boards and to the efficient honouring of
the Terms of Settlement, which, in spite of their vagueness, marked an important step forward
for the industry, largely because of the sensible way in which they have been interpreted