一九世紀イギリスにおける絹工業 : 貿易自由化と地場産業

抄録

There was a sharp contrast between the silk and the cotton industries in England. First of all, although the latter was swiftly mechanized between the end of the 18th century and the 1830s, it was difficult for the former to be mechanized, owing to the technical barrier. Secondly, while the cotton industry was a national one, the silk industry was a local one, in which about 65% of the working population of Macclesfield engaged in 1841. Thirdly, "free trade" for the cotton manufacturer sacrificed the silk industry in two ways: on the one hand, it was forced to compete with the French and Italian silk industries, in spite of its immaturity and, on the other hand, the unemployment of silk weavers became a serious problem, for the silk industry was regarded as an "asylum" of cotton weavers. After glancing over the history of protectionism concerning the silk industry, the author investigates the relation between three locations of the silk industry, i.e., Spitalfields, Macclesfield and Manchester, with relation to the opening of ports. Though the Spitalfields silk industry suffered from the catching-up of the Macclesfield one even before the opening of ports, the former was hit by the importation of French silks. He attributes the superiority of the French silks to the follwing three factors: the systematic discipline of artisans in response to foreign demand, high-class raw silk domestically produced to the amount of four-fifths of total consumption and cheaper wages. The Spitalfields manufacturers declined to produce fashionable goods and began to produce such coarser goods as the gros de Naples, which resulted in serious competition with the manufacturers of Manchester and Macclesfield. How about the silk throwing? Throwsters of Macclesfield suffered from the import of Italian silk. Such a situation seems to have been unavoideble, due to the difference in the cost. In the latter half of the article, the author turns his attention to the industrial relations of Macclesfield silk industry. First of all, it should be pointed out that Macclesfield was honoured to be the model for the local boards of conciliation and arbitration. If there had not been instituted, there would have been continuous labour disputes. It was because there were many sorts of silk product and it was quite possible that each master would pay different prices for the same product. The author is surprised that there was a committee of silk weavers in Macclesfield as early as the 1790s and drew up a price-list, in order to begin something like a negotiation with the masters. Handloom weavers were the so-to-speak labour aristocracy and there wasn't any border which couldn't be crossed between their masters and them. The foundation of the Board of Conciliation in 1826 should be evidence of the existence of the abovementioned spirit. There were those manufacturers who after having their fortunes build up by their weavers' labour, took their work to other places(where prices were lower than in Macclesfield) and left them to live in misery and want. They would have been large-scale manufacturers who made their weavers weave the coaser goods. Both they and their employees were, as it were, not fully citizens. Small-scale manufacturers and their employees, on the contrary, were fully citizens of Macclesfield and kept weaving bandanna. The local Board of Trade, being a sort of local board of conciliation and arbitration, worked to their advantage.